He would not have known him either. From the beginning. Funk energetically contested this. He stated this on his oath, and the affidavit made by his permanent companion Dr. Schwedler, contained in Document Book Funk 13 and submitted to you, clearly proves that Funk never was in a concentration camp; Dr. Schwedler is in a position to know this, as he had at that time been the permanent companion of the defendant and had from day to day known where Funk stayed. In fact, Funk never was a minister of finance, and never took part in a conference of ministers of finance. Accordingly it is beyond any doubt that what the witness Dr. Blaha was able to tell here purely from hearsay is based on false information or on a confusion with another visitor, and that could all the more have been the case because Funk was rather unknown to the public. The result, therefore, is: Funk never visited a concentration camp and never came to know the conditions existing therein. assert that he did not know anything at all about the existence of such concentration camps. Just as almost any German, Funk knew, of course, that there were concentration camps in Germany after 1933, just as he know that there were penitentiaries, prisons and other penal institutions in Germany. here, was the very large number of such concentration camps and of their inmates, amounting to hundreds of thousands, oven millions, unknown,to him were also the countless atrocities committed in those camps, atrocities made known only in this trial. In Particular, Funk only heard during this trial that there were even extermination camps which served to murder millions of Jews. Funk had no knowledge of this; he stated it on his oath and it appears quite credible, as one of the most important results of this trial consists in the evidence that the German people, on the whole, did not know about the conditions in the concentration camps and about their immense number, but that, on the contrary those con ditions were hold secret in such a cunning and cruel way that 15 July M LJG 4-2 even the highest officials of the Reich up to the so-called ministers, did not learn anything about them.
part of the indictment which, had it been true, would have imputed the man Funk in the most serious and terrible way. One may think as are pleases about acts of violence during a political and economic struggle, especially in stormy revolutionary periods; according to the opinion of the defendant Funk, there cannot be any disment of view on one point, that is concerning the atrecities in concentration camp and how they were committed for years, especially against the Jewish population. Anyone who participated in such unheard of atrocities, should atone for it in the most rigerous way, according to the opinion of the entire German people. expressed here on May 6th, 1946, answering the American prosecutor, that as a man and as a German he was feeling aheavy guilt and a deep shame for what Germans perpetrated on millions of wretched people. ation of the Funk case as far as criminal law is concerned, and that only is the task of the defense in this trial, to examine the evidence in the case Funk. ant, has brought proof that criminal guilt on on his part does not exist, and that with a clear conscience he can ask and expect to he acquitted, because crimes have never been committed by him at any time during his life. defendant Funk too, a sentence which does not make him atone for other people's guilt, a guilt which he could not prevent, which he did not even know, but which only establishes the degree of his own guilt, not his political guilt, but his criminal guilt, which alone is the subject of those proceedings; a sentence which is valid not only for today but which will be recognized as just 15 July M LJG 4-3 also in the future, at a time when we shall have gained the necessary temporal distance to these terrible events and shall be considering these things Without passion, like happenings of a remote historical period; a sentence, gentlemen of the Tribunal, which not only gives satisfaction to the nations Which you are representing, but which will be perceived as just and wise by the German people as a whole; a sentence which does not only destroy and take revenge and sow hate for the future, but which makes possible and facilitates the re-ascending of the German people towards a happier future of human dignity and of charity, of equality and of 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 Goering, 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 defendant's counsol 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 to say about these 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 Schetter and another from a man called Jopisch which haven't yet been received, -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord.
15 July M LJG 4-4
THE PRESIDENT: -- and three letters from Seyss-Inquart to Himmler which haven't yet been produced.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: That is so, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Also, in the case of Fritsche there are two interrogatories of Delmar and Feldscher which haven't 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 that 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 with regard to 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 the third of July by the defendant Sauckel to be considered by the Tribunal, and then there are a number which are lettered "A" be "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. Those documents "A" to "I" -
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: -- were they applied for after the case had been closed?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: They were submitted on the third of July, sir. That would be after the case had been closed.
THE PRESIDENT: But that was at the time, wasn't it, when we 15 July M LJG 4-5 were asking for supplementals?
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 to which you have just been referring all in the document book already?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Dr. Servatius tells me they are.
SIR DAVID MAXWELLFYFE: 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 thatassurance 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. behalf of the defendant Sauckel for a document. It is an affidavit by the defendant, dated the 29 June, 1946. The Prosecution have no objection to the application. Sauckel, is with regard to an affidavit from a witness called Walkenherst. my Lord, that again, the Prosecution submits, is cumulative.
THE PRESIDENT: You say Falkenherst?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Walkenherst, sir, My Lord, it is the very last application on my list.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, concerning the witness Walkenherst, may I make a statement? The witness had been called for Bormann and I did not insist on questioning that witness and with the permission of the Tribunal and with your approval, I have submitted this affidavit. Since it was approved, I did not insist on questioning the witness. I assume that will be confirmed by the Prosecution also.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean, Dr. Servatius, that the affidavit from Walkenherst had already been granted before?
DR. SERVATIUS: I assume it had been granted at that time. The witness was standing outside, waiting outside and I was asked whether I would like to question the witness. Thereupon I said I have an affidavit which concerns one particular point, is limited to that one particular point and it would be sufficient if I could submit the affidavit. He was the last witness who was supposed to be heard at the one of the rest of the evidence.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, I do not insist in the opposition under these circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: What about those two affidavits asked for by Dr. Steinbauer from Erwin Schotter and Adolf Jopisch?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, we have not got these yet. As I understand it, theyhave 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. Then, for the rest you have no other objections?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: 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 sonFrederick Sauckel. The Prosecution has objected to that on the ground of irrelevance and cumulativeness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE:A Yes, My Lord, that is the position. the evidence of the defendant's son would contribute anything fresh.
THE PRESIDENT: And that application was made after the 3rd of July? No, I see that is wrong. It was before that it was submitted but it was not mentioned on the 3rd of July.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, it was an application to bring the witness here from England because presumably he could give information as to a number of things. I have not made a formal application yet. It was just a request to have him brought from England to Nurnberg for the purpose of obtaining information and to see whether he would be able to give information, such as he indicated.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: My Lord, I would not make objection to the defedant'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 difficultythat these sort of applications put the Tribunal in is that the case never closes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FIFE: Yes, my Lord, I quite agree.
DR. SERVATIUS: I did not know before this that the witness was in England. He was a prisoner and there was no news from him, no information about him until very recently.
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 having been received at the general secretary's office on the 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. 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 (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): I am of the opinion that that is included and has been sufficiently dealt with in my speech.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, Dr. Horn, there are twoaffidavits, one from Ribbentrop and one from Schulze not yet put in. Do you want them?
DR. HORN: (Counsel for defendant Ribbentrop): Mr. President, concerning the affidavit Schulze, there must be some mistake. I have not submitted an affidavit of Schulze or made any application.
THE PRESIDENT: It was a mistake. already dealt with that?
DR. HORN: No, I am asking that I be permitted to put the affidavit of Ribbentrop in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Why do you desire the defendant Ribbentrop make an affidavit? He has given his evidence in full. Is it something that has arisen since?
DR. HORN: In the affidavit Ribbentrop he mentioned several documents which were submitted to him during the cross-examination and he only had an opportunity to speak very briefly about them. I do not want to extend my final speech by treating with all these documents and therefore, I have submitted this affidavit and I have asked the tribunal to kindly 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 refer to the entire document, the entire contents thereof, in my 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 in evidence. I found out later that the document exists in two copies. 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 Erin Schotter and the other, Jopisch?
Dr. STEINBAUER (Counsel for defendant Seyss-Inquart): I have submitted the two documents for translation and since the translating division is very busy I have not received the translation yet. But I should like to submit the two originals to theTribunal under the numbers already given, 112 and 113 -- 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 knowbefore the Tribunal rises tonight.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the application made before 3 July or when was it made?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, on the 3 July I had received these two documents 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.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you were saying Dr. Steinbauer?
DR. STEINBAUER: That I received the document, the interrogatory of the witness Dr. Reuter, which I received last Saturday. It has been approved. I received it in German and in English and I should like to submit the original to the Tribunal under Seyss-Inquart 114.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the name of the person who was interrogated?
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Reuter. He was questioned about the sanitary and health conditions in the Motherlands. The Tribunal has definitely approved that interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that will be considered, then.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then I submit it in evidence under number SeyssInquart 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 is 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 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 Goering and Ribbentrop and the Counsel for Raeder, and the other defendants because they 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 Foldscher. These have been allowed--granted--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.
DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant von Papen): In the case of Papen there are also a number of interrogatories which have not been received. I have received four interrogatories with the answers in the meantime, but they are still in the Translating Division. Three interrogatories have not yet been received. I ask to be permitted to present them later on.
THE PRESIDENT: They have been granted before, I suppose? Have they been granted?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, they have been granted before, with the exception of one affidavit which I have also dealt with here but which has not yet been translated and has been in process of translation of some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the application for that interrogatory had been allowed, I suppose?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That application was announced by me recently, but I was told to have it translated. I have not yet received the translation, however, and I will submit that document, together with the other documents, as soon as I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Go on, Dr. Dix.
DR. RUDOLF DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): Mr. President, gentlemen of the Bench. The singularity of Schacht's case appears graphically from one glance at the defendants' bench and from the history of his inprisonment and defense. Kaltenbrunner and Schacht sit on the defendants' bench. Whatever the powers of the defendant Kaltenbrunner may have been, he was in any case Chief of the Main Reich Security Office. Until those May days of 1945, Schacht was a prisoner of the Main Reich Security Office in various concentration camps. It makes a rarely grotesque picture to see a Jailer-in-chief and a prisoner sharing the same defendants' bench. At the very start of the criminal trial this remarkable picture alone must have given cause for reflection to all those participating in the trial, judges, prosecutors, and defense counsels. 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 People's Court (Volksgerichtshof), headed by that hanging judge Freisler, would have convicted him if his imprisonment had not been exchanged for one by the victorious Allied powers. Ever since the summer of 1944 I held the commission to defend Schacht before Adolf Hitler's People's 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, forces all those participating in the trial to have misgivings, as far as the person of Schacht is concerned. One involuntarily recalls the fate of Seneca; Nero, as a counterpart to Hitler, put Seneca on tri for revolutionary activities. After the death of Nero, Seneca was charged with complicity in the bed government and atrocities of Nero, and thus in a conspira 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. Even if 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 defend itself before the judgement seat of history. thorough and careful presentation of evidence. It is a picture with a great deal of background. An opportunity was given to depict, within the range of possibility, these backgrounds also.
Within the range of possibility. But at the same time this means the limitation of such a thoroughgoing investigation through a judicial presentation of evidence which, to be sure, was thorough, but which nevertheless had to brought to an end as soon as possible, according to the reqirements of the Charter. is still enough which has been left to the intuition of the Court. It is not possible and will never be possible to understand Hitler - Germany from a constitutional point of view, according to the scientific conceptions and and views of people with a legal mind. As a scientific theme, the Constitution under Adolf Hitler was a "lucus a non locendo". Understand me well! "The Constitution", which means a legal arrangement made by the Hitler State, and not the final pleading of Jahrreiss to illuminate the tyranny of a despot from some legal point of view. Possible, but difficult and therefore not yet published, would be a scientific sociology of the Third Reich. distributions of power within those circles of people who were apparently or actually called upon to do their share for the formation of a political will. Most of them will be surprised after the unveiling of this picture. How much less possible was it for a foreigner at the time of bringing the indictment, to judge correctly the constitutional, sociological and internal political conditions of Hilter-Germany. But the correct judgement of these things was a prerequisite for an indictment founded correctly from both the factual and the legal point of view. fronted with what was for them an insoluble task. I am furthermore of the opinion that the prosecution would have never presented their criminal charges against the defendants under the head of a conspiracy, if they could have understood the distribution of political power in Hitler-Germany in the way as this is perhaps today for an intelligent observer and listener at this trial who is gifted with political intuition, even if this would be difficult enough. matter, not possible in the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler.
against Adolf Hitler and the regime. As we have ascertained here, several such conspiracies took place. Conspirators act somewhat differently to one other than an assistant acts toward the chief perpetrator. The part to be played by the individual conspirator in the execution of the common plan may vary. Several or even one of the conspirators may hold a leading position within the conspiracy.
At all times however, cooperation is necessary, Usuage of language in itself precludes speaking of a conspiracy if only one commands and all the others are merely executing organs. as crime can never be subsumed according to criminal law as facts in a case of conspiracy. Other legal factors which might come into question are of no interest to me as defense counsel for the defendant SCHACHT, because as an individual person, without connection with deeds of others and consequently only on the basis of his own actions, no criminal charge at all can be brought against SCHACHT. SCHACHT personally wanted the permissible and the best. His actions served this desire. To the extent that he erred from a political point of view, he is just as ready to have history judge his deeds. But even the greatest dynamics of international law cannot penalize political error. If it did this, the profession of the statesman and politician would be quite impossible. World history moves more through mistakes and errors than through correct perceptions. According to Lessing's wise words, the recognition of absolute truth is reserved to God. There remains to man only the endeavor, to find truth as the highest possession. Old Axel Oxenstierna already said, and probably appropriately, nescis mi fill quanta stultitia mundus regitur. Thereby he admitted the erroneous element in certain of his decisions and actions. The prosecution disputes SCHACHT's good faith and imputes to him the dolus of being Adolf Hitler's agent in finances, he deliberately worked for a war of aggression, thereby placing him implicitly under the angle of conspiracy before penal law because of all the deeds of cruelty which were committed by others during this war. Even the Prosecution was not able to produce direct proof for these claims. They tried it first by means of purportedly documentary evidence, in the form of misinterpreted utterances by Schacht, torn from their context. Herein the Prosecution referred to witnesses who could not be made available for examination before this Court because in part they were absent, or in part they had died. I recall the affidavits of Messersmith and Fuller and the diary notes of Dodd. Their inadequate value as evidence was thoroughly set forth to the Tribunal in Schacht's examination by me. In the interest of saving time, I do not wish to repeat what has been said, and it surely must still be within the recollection of the court.
of Schacht's actions as determined beyond reason of doubt. All these arguments by the Prosecution are erroneous conclusions from alleged indices. I am confining myself to enumeration of the most essential false conclusions. The others follow by necessity either directly therefrom or analogous therewith. This he was indeed. This opposition in itself the Prosecution does not hold against him. However, it concludes therefrom that Schacht strove to do away with it by force. The Prosecution says that Schacht favored colonial activity. He did indeed. It does not reproach him because of it but it concludes therefrom that he wanted to conquer the colonies by force, and so it goes on. of Economics, 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 union with Austria, consequently he approved of a policy of violence against that country. Schacht devised the "New Plan " of commercial policy, consequently he wanted to procure raw materials or armament. Schacht was concerned about the possibilities for existence for excess populations 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 defemation of Germany, consequently Schacht threatened war. Because no written evidence has been found for Schacht's withdrawal 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 Goering. one likes. It finds its culmination in the false conclusion: Hitler would never have come to power if it had not been for Schacht; never would Hitler have been able to rearm if Schacht had not helped. But, gentlemen, this kind of evaluation of evidence would condemn an automobile manufacturer because the driver of a car, while drunk, ran over a pedestrian.
In his speeeches or writings Schacht never advocated force or perhaps even war.
It is certain that after Versailles he pointed out again and again the dangers which would result from the moral outlawing and from the 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, beginning soon after the Versailles Treaty, which are in the same tone as the warnings of Schacht. The correctness of this confirmed proof will in any case be valid for all time. At no time did SCHACHT, however recommend other ways or even decklare them possible, than those of a peaceful understanding and collaboration. To him as a pronounced economic politician it was clearer than to any other, that a war can never bring a solution, not even when it is won. In all of SCHACHTS's statements his pacifist attitude was expressed again and again, in the shortest and the most appropriate manner perhaps, in that statement at the Berlin Congress of the International Chamber of Commerce, when SCHACHT? in the presence of HITLER, GOERING and other heads of the Government called out to the assembly : " Believe me, my friends, the nations wish to live and not to die". This pronounced pacifist attitude of SCHACHT is likewise confirmed by all witnesses and affidavits. and not only " in Germany " - who correctly recognized HITLER and his Government from the very beginning, it certainly was an anxiety and a sorrow, at the very least a problem, to see a man like SCHACHT placing his services and his great specialist ability at the disposition 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 letter's belligerent and brave behavior in the years 1938 and 1939. In his interrogation SCHACHT has outlinded t reasons which caused him to act in this manner. I need not, and I do not wish to repeat them in the interests of saving time.
The evidence has not shown anything which would be contrary to the veracity of this presentation by SCHACHT.
To the contrary. I only refer, for example, to the affidavit of secretary- of-State SCHMI. Exhibit No. 41 of my document book, which contains detailed statements on this subject on page 2, which are in complete agreement with SCHACHT's description. Conideration of the remaining testimon of witnesses and affidavits as a whole leads to the same result. In order to understand the manner in which SCHACHT acted at that time as well as directly after the seizure of power, and also later, when he had recognized HITLER and his disastrous effect, it is absolutely cecessary to gain a clear picture regarding the disatrous sorcery of Adolf HITLER and his system of government For both are the soil from which SCHACHT'S actions arose, and by which alone they can be explained. I realize that one could speak about this for days and that volumes could be written about it, should one wish to exhaust the subject. However, I also realize that before this Tribunal short references and spotlights are sufficient in order to gain the appreciation of the Tribunal. The disintergrating collapse of imperial Germany in the year 1918 presented the German people with a parliamentarydemocratic form of Constitution, which was established superficial and which never became part and parcel of the nation. I claim that all unselfishly directed political thinking must strive for democracy, if bay it the protection of justice, tolerance against those of different convictions and liberty, as well as the political shaping of humanity is also understood. These are the highest ideals of all time, which, however in certain constituted forms harbor especial dangers for themselves. If, at the introduction of democracy on the European Continent, reactionary political thinkers like Count Metternich and the like opposed all democratic tendencies, then they did this because they saw only the dangers of democracy and not its characteristics for the advantage of humanity and its necessity at the time. With regard to these danger they were unfortunately right. The cleverest nation, which has perhaps ever lived, the Greeks of Antiquity, had already pointed out the danger of the development of democracy through demagogy to tyranny, and probably all philosophical political thinkers from Aristotele to Thomas Aquinas up to the present time have pointed out the danger of this development.
This danger increases in extent if democratic freedom in the formal state-legislative sense does not grow and become inherent in the nation, but becomes more or less a chance gift to a nation. " In fait d'histoire il vaut mieux continuer que recommencer ", a greet French thinker has said. Unfortunately this has caused Germany to become the latest and it is to be hoped the last example of a tyranny established by means of the devilish demagog of one individual despot. For there is no doubt: The Hitler Government is a despotism of an individual, which can only find comparison in Asia at a time which is far behind us. In order to understand the attitude of every individual toward this Government not only that of SCHACHT, not only that of every German, but generally that of every person or that of each and every government in the world, which has collaborated with HITLER, and such collaboration, based on confidence on the part of the foreign countries was much greater towards HITLER than towards any government of the so-called interim-Reich or of the so-called State of the Weimar Constitution ; it is therefore necessary to analyse the personality of this despot, this political piedpiper, this genial demagogue, who, as SCHACHT here testified in his interrogation with comprehensible exsitement, did not only betray him, but also the German people and the whole world. In order to complete this betrayal, HITLER was forced to draw innumerable clever and politically trained personalities besides SCHACHT, even outside the German frontiers, into the aura of his personality. In this he even succeeded with prominent foreigners, even those in leading political positions. this point. The fact is generally known to the Tribunal. How was this ascendency of Hitler both in Germany and abroad possible ? of course Faust, too, was under the ascendency of Mephiste. In Germany, every circumstance exposed at the examina tion of evidence as to the situation then prevalent in Germany ran counter to this ascendency, and the same applies to Schacht.