sufficient consequence to cause you to resign and withhold a further use of your name from this regime? towards the better and, consequently, I accepted all the disadvantages which were connected with my remaining in office, even the danger that some day I would be judged, as it is happening today. despite your disapproval, as you say, of the invasion of Poland? never given that permission. deal to this group at any time, and that you were one of the only men in that group who had any standing abroad? you as a compliment. The second, I believe, is not correct. I believe that several other members of the regime also had a standing in foreign countries, among whom also were a few who are sitting with me in the prisoner's dock. obtained the understanding that you were supporting the regime continuously until you were deprived of the office of minister without portfolio, would they not?
A That is absolutely incorrect. As I have stated yesterday repeatedly and also during my direct examination, I have always been mentioned in foreign broadcasts as a man who is an enemy of the system and all my friends and acquaintances in foreign countries, and there were very many of those, knew that I was against this system and worked against it. And if any journalist could be mentioned to me today who did not know this, then he does not know his business. banker Leon-diplomatic representative of the United States in Berlin, was there not?
and usually once a day with Washington?
A Yes. I didn't know it; but I assumed it. United States or with an official of the United States, you might have communicated through the regular channels? an American official. I merely desired to reestablish my connection with a friend who had invited me in January to come to the United States, and I make reference to this previous correspondence between him and me in January.
Now, Dr. Schacht, while you were minister without portfolio aggressive wars were instituted, according to your testimony, against Poland, against Denmark and Norway in April of 19140, against Holland and Belgium in May of 1940; in June there was the French armistice and surrender, in September of 1940, there was the German-Japanese-Italian Tripartite Pact; in April of 1941, there was an attack on Jugoslavia and Greece, which you were say were aggressive; in June of 1940 there was the invasion of Soviet Russia, which you say was aggressive; on December the 7th, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and after the attack declared war on the United States; on the 8th of December, 1941, the United States declared on Japan, but not on Germany; on December the 11th, 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States; and all these things happened in the foreign field and you kept your position as minister without portfolio under the Hitler Government, didn't you?
A Mr. Justice -
Q Isn't that a fact?
A Yes, and I wish to add something to this. Dozens of witnesses who have testified here, and from myself you have heard again and again that it was absolutely impossible unilaterally to retire from an office because, if I have been put in as a minister by the head of a government, I can only retire over his signature. You have also heard that at various times I attempted to rid myself of this ministerial office. Besides the witnesses' testimony, I can bring you testimony from others, including Americans, that it was well known that Hitler did not permit anyone to retire from an office without his permission.
And now you accuse me that I remained. I did not remain for my pleasure. I remained because there was no other possibility for me than with a tremendous crash to retire from the ministry, and this crash I tried to bring about almost every day until, finally in January 1943, I succeeded to do that and then to disappear from my office under certain danger to my life.
Q Well, I'll deal with your explanation later. I am now getting the facts.
You didn't have an open break with Hitler so that you were not entirely out of, office there after the German offensive broke down in Russia and the German armies were in retreat, and after the allies landed in Africa, didn't you? crash is dated November 30, 1942. The crash and its success is dated January 21, 1943, because Hitler and Goering and some other people who had to deal with it needed seven weeks to make up their minds about the consequence of my actions. the ship was sinking, wasn't it, or was lost? times have already shown this. You have also already spoken about this. I have mentioned my rights to Ribbentrop and Funk I have given a number of descriptions here which, prove that I never believed in the possibility of a German victory at any time. My disappearance from my office has nothing to do with these questions at all. without portfolio because you thought it might be dangerous to resign. You were encouraging the generals in the Army to commit treason against the head of the State, were you not? to this. It was not because of the threatening danger to my life. For myself I was not afraid of danger to my life because my life had been endangered since 1937 on I had been in constant danger of my life and I was exposed to the whim of the Party an of the head of the Party. treason against the head of the state I answer with the word yes.
Hitler, did you not? by me, I did not think of an assassination of Hitler. However, I must admit that later I said if it could be done any other way, we will have to kill him.
Q Did you say "I will have to kill him" or did you say "Somebody else will have to kill him?" myself. Yes. But, please don't accuse -- don't put me before a German court for attempted murder because in that case I am guilty. sufficiently open so that the foreign files in France, which you say were searched by the Gestapo, had a single bit of it?
A Yes, I couldn't announce it or it would have been in the newspapers. put you under arrest until the 20th of July attack on Hitler's life? if they had been a little smarter, but that seems to be a strange attribute of any police force. dismissed you? Until that time they apparently were in the belief that you were doing more good than harm?
A The thoughts which they had at that time I don't know.
Please don't question me about that. You will have to ask somebody from the regime, and you have plenty of those right here. attack on 20 July on Hitler's life?
Q You knew that Gisevius says you didn't know about it?
know, but also Goerdeler and General Lindemann. I was entirely informed about everything and Col. Grunan told me about it. I also stated that I did not inform my friends about this because this was a bi-lateral agreement and we did not want to talk to anyone about anything which could have gone to the Gestapo. three people who knew about that being wrought within military personnel? thing--about every detail, so naturally, he could not testify about it.
Q And so, Dr. Schacht, we are to appraise your testimony in the light of the fact that you personally, over a long period of time, pursued a course of sabotage of your government's policies under treason, against the head of the State, rather than openly resign your office completely?
A You constantly refer to my resignation. I have told you and proven to you that a resignation was not possible. Consequently your conclusion is a wrong one.
Q Let's see. In your interrogation on October 16, 1945. United States Exhibit, 636, some questions were asked you about the generals of the Army, and I ask you if you didn't -- if you weren't asked these questions and if you didn't give these answers.
Question: "I say, suppose you were chief of the general staff, and Hitler decided to attack Austria, would you say you had the right to withdraw?"
Answer: "I would have said, 'Withdraw me, sir'."
Question: "You would have said that?"
Answer: Yes.
Question: "So you take the position that any officer could, at any time, withdraw if he thought that the moral obligation was such that he felt that he could not go on?"
Answer: "Quite."
Question: "In other words, you feel that the members of the general staff of the Wehrmacht who were responsible for carrying into execution Hitler's plan are actually guilty with him?"
Answer: "That is a very difficult question you put to me, sir, and I answer yes."
You gave those answers, didn't you? to give an explanation. If Hitler, if Hitler, I say, ever had given me an immoral order, I would have refused to execute it. That is what I said about the generals also, and I stand to this testimony which you have just read.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am through with him, your Honor, except that I would like to note the exhibit numbers. The petition to Hinde referred to yesterday is 3901-PS, and will become USA Exhibit 837. The von Blomberg interrogation of October 1945, is United States Exhibit 838.
DR. LATERNSER (Counsel for the General Staff and the O.K.W.) Mr. President, I request that the testimony of the accused Schacht be stricken from the record as far as he was accused, and this became part of the protocol, the minutes. The question, as I understood it, was whether he considered the general staff as actually guilty as Hitler. This question was answered with "Yes by this accused. also the answer--because a witness cannot make judgment in this case. That is a task of the court. For this reason, I request that this testimony be stricken from the record.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I do not offer this opinion of Schacht's as evidence against the General Staff or against any soldier on trial. The evidence, I think, was apparently used to the credibility of Schacht as to his position, and I do not think that his opinion on this matter is evidence against himself on the question of credibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: The question by Justice Jackson was not phrased as to whether Schacht considered the General Staff guilty, but the question was whether it was correct that Schacht, in an interrogation during his previous examination, had given a certain answer to one question. In other words, it was a question about a fact which was in the past and it was not a question about an opinion or a judgement which he was expected to give here. stricken out, to the extent of these exact words: "I, Schacht, would not have executed an immoral order by Hitler; I refused." I request that those words remain in the record. So far as the rest of this answer of Schacht's is concerned, I, as his defense counsel, declare that it is a matter of indifference to me.
DR. LATERNSER: Mr. President, after the declaration of Justice Jackson, I withdraw my objection.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, may I begin my cross-examination?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: your counsel you informed us as to the circumstances of your meeting for the first time with Hitler and Goering. You also recalled one detail, such a particular detail as the pea soup served for supper at Goering's place. relations with Hitler and Goering, Tell us, on whose initiative did the first meeting with Hitler and Goering take place? Strauss, had invited me to an evening in his home, and in his home I met Goering. The meeting with Hitler took place byway of Goering asking me to come to his home -- that is, Goering's home -- to meet Hitler. to meet Hitler and Goering? strongest parties within the Reichstag. They had 108 seats, and the National Socialist movement, throughout the country, was extremely lively. Consequently I had a general interest in making the acquaintance of the leading men of this movement of whom I had no knowledge, or at least whom I didn't know until then.
Q But then you said that you were invited by Goering. Why did Goering invite you?
A Please ask Mr. Goering that.
Q Didn't you ask him yourself?
A Mr. Goering had the desire to have me meet Hitler, or that Hitler meet me.
Q What for? With what aim in mind?
A That you must ask Mr. Goering.
Q Don't you think that Hitler and Goering intended, and not without success, to draw you into participation in the Fascist movement, since they knew you as a remarkable financier and as a man who was sharing their views? that time. However, I could imagine that it would be just as interesting for these gentlemen to meet Mr. Schacht as it was interesting to me to meet Mr. Hitler and Mr. Goering.
Q It was limited only by your interest? Am I correct in understanding that? Or did you have some other considerations of a political nature? You understood, of course, that your participation in the Fascist movement by itself would be quite profitable to Hitler, inasmuch as you were a well-known man? kind of people these men were. What interest these two gentlemen had, as I have already stated, is unknown to me. My collaboration in the Fascist movement was entirely out of the question, and I have never collaborated in this matter. As I have stated here, the acquaintance was made in January of 1931, which was one and a half years before these elections. Throughout these eighteen months a collaboration did not take place.
Tell me, were those the only meetings, the ones you have related? Did you meet them again, before Hitler came into power? or three times. I cannot recall any more during these eighteen months. However, there is no question of any frequent meetings.
Q How; do you explain the appearance of your letter to Hitler of the 29th of August, 1932, in which you offer to Hitler your own services? you remember this letter, do you not?
Q How do you explain its appearance?
A I have spoken about this repeatedly. Will you please read it in the record?
Q Will you repeat it once again, please, briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: If he has been over it once, that is sufficient.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Very well, I will pass on to another question. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: participate in the future Hitlerite Government, and when were you promised the post of Director of the Reichsbank? government, but he was really a high official outside of the government circle. was on the 30th of January, 1933, when I ran into Goering accidently, in the vestibule of the Kaiserhof Hotel, and he said to me: "Ah, there comes our future President of the Reichsbank." Fascist theory of German race supremacy was nothing else but nonsense; that the Fascist viewpoint was really not a serious viewpoint; that you were against the so-called solution of the Lebensraum problem by means of aggressive wars; that you were against the principle of leadership which was established by the Fascist Party; and also, in regard to this, that you made a speech in the Law Academy and stated that you were against the Fascist ideology which was directed against the Jews.
Is that correct? Did you state that while you were answering the questions put to you by your counsel?
Q Well, say it then. What was it that led you to Fascism and to cooperation with Hitler?
A Nothing led me to Fascism; I have never been a Fascist. a negative attitude toward his theories and the theories of German Fascism?
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, he has told us what he says led him to cooperate with Hitler. I think you must have heard him.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: But, in fact, it took place. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV:
Q In reply to a question of your counsel as to why you didn't emigrate, you stated that you did not want to be a martyr. Of course, you know the fate of the eminent people in Germany who were liberals; you know what their fate was when Hitler took control.
A You make a mistake here. I did not answer that I did not want to be a martyr so far as the question of emigration was concerned. However, I said that emigrants--that is, people who left voluntarily--never did any service to their country, and I did not want to put my own fate into safekeeping, but I wanted to continue to work for the fate of my own country. from such a role in the interests of my country. I said that men who die for their country are martyrs only if that fact becomes known.
Q I understood you somewhat differently. I will repeat my question. progressive in mind? What was their fate when Hitler took over Germany? in concentration camps. You know about that, do you not? who are in exile, not those who left the country by force but these who left voluntarily--those are the ones I had been speaking about. The fate of the others is not known to me in detail. If you ask me about individual persons, I will tell you about each one of these persons, whether I know about his fate or not.
AAnd the fate of such people is well known generally. You are one of very few German statesmen who was cooperating with Hitler, Do you admit it?
A. No.
Q. You testified -- and I am forced to come back to the same question -as to the entry in the Goebbels diary dated the 21st of November, 1932. You stated the entry is false. Once again I remind you of this entry which Goebbels wrote, and I quote:
"In conversation with Dr. Schacht I was convinced that he fully reflects our viewpoint. He is one of the few who fully agrees with the Fuehrer's positi far as the facts I mentioned are concerned? I ask you this now.
A. I have not claimed that this entry is false. I claimed Goebbels was under this impression and that he was merely in error.
Q. And then according to your statement this does not correspond with the facts, this entry, so far as your attitude towards Hitler's regime was concerned. Is it so or not?
A. In the general way in which Goebbels does his writing, it is absolutely wrong.
Q. Then why didn't you express a protest against this, when Goebbels' entry was published?
A. IF I had wanted to protest against all the inaccuracies which were printed in Germany, reports about me, I would never have come to my senses.
Q. Well, this is the diary of Goebbels, who is very, very well known as one of the Fascist men in Germany. In this diary he informed people about your political views and if you were not in agreement with such views it would have been quite all right for you to react in some way.
A. Permit me to say something to this. We either have argument or you want to speak uniliterally. I say that the diary of Goebbels was a rather unusual thing.
Q. The witness, Franz Reuter, your biographer and a close friend, in his written affidavit dated 6th of February, 1946, which you have presented to the Tribunal through your Counsel as No. 35, testified to the following:
"Schacht in the beginning of 1930 enjoined Hitler and helped in the matters of the seizure of the government." so far as the facts are concerned, or do you confirm and admit them?
A. I consider them wrong.
Q. What kind of participation did you have in so far as securing Hitler's seizure of power was concerned -- I shall continue the question: Under what kind of circumstances in February, 1936, had you organized a meeting or a conference of Hitler with the industrialists? It has already been mentioned here before.
A. I never helped Hitler at all to come to power. All this has been discussed in detail here. In February of 1933 Hitler had already been in power quite some time. Regarding the money collections and industrial meetings of February, 1933, we have been speaking in detail right in this court room.
Q. What particular role did you play in this conference?
A. This, too, has been discussed in detail. Please read about it in the record.
Q. I already have familiarized myself with the reports, but you were not quite exact in giving us information on the circumstances. I am referring to the testimony of the Defendant Funk dated June 4, 1945. In order to clarify the question, this document, No. 28-PS contains -- and I quote Defendant Funk's statement on it:
"I was present at this conference and money was demanded, not by Goering by Schacht. Hitler left the room and Schacht made a speech in which he was demanding money for an election campaign. I was present there. I was present as an impartial witness, inasmuch as I was quite friendly to the industrialists."
Is this testimony of the Defendant Funk true; so far as the facts are concerned, or is it not?
A. Mr Funk is in error. We have heard the document, D-203. It was read by the Prosecution -- please don't interrupt me. The Prosecution has submitted this document and this document shows that Goering directed the request for financial aid and not I.
Q. When the Defendant Funk was interrogated in regard to this matter he maintained this speech was uttered not by Goering but by you. I ask you now which is true.
A. I have just told you that Mr. Funk is in error and that the evidence of the Prosecution is correct.
Q. And still what particular role did you play during this conference?
A. This, too, I have already described in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has already heard a long cross-examiniation and it doesn't desire to hear the same facts or matters gone over again. Will you tell the Tribunal whether you have any points which the soviet Union are particularly interested in which have not been dealt with on cross-examination?
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, in his testimony which went into quite detail the Defendant Schacht was not quite clear in many instances, which would have been satisfying to us. Therefore, I am forced in separate instances to come back to the same questions. In particular it is not quite clear to us what was the role of the Defendant Schacht in carrying through this conference of Hitler with the industrialists. The Defendant Schacht did not give clear and concise answers to this question. think that after the recess -- within twenty or thirty minutes -- I will finish my cross-examination, and all those additional supplementary questions, which are quite interesting to us, in order to ascertain the guilt of the Defendant Schacht.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal is not prepared to listen to questions which have already been put.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Perhaps now you will find it desirable to declare a recess, so that the cross-examination can continue after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: General Alexandrov, the cross-examination will continue up to the recess. bank and then the Minister of Economics and General Plenipotentiary for War and you admit that you played a decisive part in a matter of armament in Germany and in such a way in the matter of getting ready for aggressive wars. economics?
Q I didn't hear it out of your own mouth, not one single time.
THE PRESIDENT: He has admitted throughout -- and of course, it is obvious -- that he was Plenipotentiary for war economy; but what you put to him was, whether he as Plenipotentiary for War Economy took part in rearmament for aggressive war, and he has said over and over again that that was not his object, that his object was to gain equality for Germany. He said so, and we have to consider whether that is true. But that he said it, is perfectly clear.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: In my subsequent questions it will be quite clear why I ask this question. for War Economy?
A I just told you -- I don't understand the question, for what duration. All this has been mentioned herd already.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the date when he became Plenipotentiary for War Economy and the date when he ceased to be. were charged with as the General Plenipotentiary. You are charged with the law for the Defense of the Reich, on the 29th of May, 1936, and I will quote a few excerpts from the second part of this law, entitled "Mobilization."
Point 1 : In order to direct the whole war economy the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor will appoint a General Plenipotentiary on the question of war economy.
Point 2: The problems of the General Plenipotentiary for Mar Economy consists of the fact that all economic forces should be mobilized for the service of war, in order to secure the economic life of the German people. The Reich Economy Minister, the Reich Food Minister, the Reich Labor Minister, the Reich Forester and all other subservient persons are to be obedient to the General Plenipotentiary. Furthermore, he is responsible for the finance of war, so far as the Reichsbank and the War Ministry are concerned. And the General Plenipotentiary for War Economy has a right to enact public laws within his economy which may be diversions as far as the present laws are concerned. powers so far as the war economy is concerned? read it correctly. the document -- I am asking you whether you admit that by such law you were given extraordinary powers in the sphere of the war economy. Do you admit it? the regular powers but extraordinary powers, that you were granted? of May, 1935, you considered this law was just an ordinary law? you considered those functions just ordinary ones?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) Tribunal in the matter of:
The United States of
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, General Alexandrov.
GENERAL-ALEXANDROV: Mr. President, taking into consideration the Tribunal's desire, as well as the fact that Mr. Jackson has already questioned Schacht in detail, and having read the minutes of this morning's session, it has been possible for me to shorten considerably the questions which I intend to put to Defendant Schacht. I have only two questions. BY GENERAL ALEXANDROV: Government made a decision with regard to defense. The decision was as follows, citing point 1:
"Appointed by the Fuehrer, the General Plenipotentiary for Military Economics has begun his work still at the time of peace According to his directive, he is to head economic preparations for war as far as such preparations do not conflict with other economic organs." carried through actively by you and with your help? Do you admit that?
A No, I definitely do not admit that, Mr. Prosecutor. in Leipzig, you said the following, citing USA-627:
"My foreign friends are not giving me any aid at the present time, nor are they giving any aid to my attempts. Neither are they trying to show that I have been in disagreement with certai basic Nazi theories.
They do appear to understand that I am somewhat the economic guardian of Germany.
"I do want to say that everything that I do economically will be exclusively with the Fuehrer's consent, and that I will not undertake anything without his consent. Thus, the real leader and inspirer of the economic program is not myself but the Fuehrer."
Do you understand the citation? Do you agree that you said that at one time?
A. I admit it and would like to make a statement. far as I had foreign friends, did not do me a favor if they said publicly that I was an adversary of Hitler, because that made my position extremely dangerous. Secondly, I said in that conversation that I would not do anything which would not be according to my conviction, and that Hitler did everything which I had suggested to him, that is, if it was his opinion also. If I had said the contrary, that would have shown. I was in accordance with him as long as he carried out my policies; after wards I was not, and then I left.
GENERAL ALEXANDROV: I have no more questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to re-examine, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: I will put only a few questions which were caused by the cross examination. BY DR. DIX: dealt with without Dr. Schacht's having had an opportunity to explain it and to state what part, if any, that plan had in the economy of rearmament, and who the responsible creator of the New Plan was. Therefore, may I put this question to Dr. Schacht now.