The total collapse of the parliamentary party system and the resulting neccessity, then already felt by the existing Government, of having to govern by emergence decrees enacted without parliamentary participation, and thus establishing a dictatorship of the ministerial bureaucracy as a fore runner of the Hitler dictatorship, elecited from nearly every quarter a clamour for a stronger leadership. The economic crisis and employment opened the ears of the masses as misery always does, to demagogic whisper The complete lethargy and inactivity of the existing middle and left parties morever instilled critical and itelligent observers, which Schacht assuredly was, with the moral deedness and yearning to welcome impetuous political "dynamics" and activity. Insofar as one so sharp witted and perspicacious as SCHACHT already discovered faults and dark sides at the outset, he could believe, and SCHACHT did believe, that he could, precisely by active penetration into the movement or by cooperation with leading State departments, which he did combat, quickly and easily these dark sides, attendant upon every revolutionary movement." When the eagle soars, vermin settle upon its wings" replied the late Minister of Justice GUERTNER? quoting from Konrad Ferdinand MEYER's "Fescara"., when I remarked to him about these dark sides, after the seizure of power. These considerations are in themselves reasonable and plausible. The fact that they contained a political error, bearing even upon SCHACHT's person, does not deprive them of their good faith and honest insperation. We do not, however, wish to forget that we have heard here, during the proceedings, 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, as it is hoped thereby that this would do away with radicalism. I refer to the document submitted here by the Prosecution : document No. 1184 L 198, a report by the American Consul General MESSERSMITH to the Secretary of State in Washington "Since the election on March 5th, some of the more important without the Party."
But what MESSERSMITH very reasonably says of ordinary Party members of that time, naturally applies also, with the necessary adjustments, to the man who placed his collaboration in a leading government post at Hitler's service. The motive given by Schacht for his decision at the time to accept the post of President of the Reichsbank and later of Minister of National Economy is therefore intrinsically credible and has no immoral or criminal implication. Schacht has always been an man of action. He only lacked at the outset the intuition to recognize the personalities of Hitler and some of his associates for what they were. But that is no punishable act, neither does it indicate a criminal intention. This intuition has been generally lacking both within and without the German frontiers. Intuition is an attribute of fortune and an irrational gift. Every man has his limitations, even the most intelligent. Schacht is as suredly very intelligent, but with him reason has prevailed to the detriment of intuition. when these mysterious forces are taken into account, which affect universal events and of which Wallenstein says : The earth belongs to the evil Spirit, not to the good " and goes on to speak of the " Towers of Darkness which under cover of darkness, perform evil deads." Adolf Hitler was a prominent example of these powers of darkness and the effects he created were all the worse as he lacked any Satanic grandeur. He remained a half educated, completely material little bourgeois who, moreover, had no sense of justice whatever. Defendant Frank says truly of him that he hated jurists because the jurist appeared to him as a disturbingfactor for his power. Thus, he could promise anything to everybody and not keep his promise because a promise for him meant only a technical instrument of power, not a legal bond.
Neither was the affect of HIMMLER and BORMANN detected by SCHACHT at the time, or indeed by anyone. Nevertheless, all those crimes that are now indicted in this Court, matured within this trio, for, to HIMMLER as well, politics were identical with murder, and his purely biological view of human society presented it to him as a herd of cattle and never as a social and ethical community. A personality like ADOLF HITLER and its effect upon men, including such intelligent men as SCHACHT, can only be correctly judged by following the prophetic vision of the poet, as I have endevoured to do, and penetreating into spheres of knowledge generally closed to the reasoning power of men. The demoniac has undoubtedly been incarnated in Adolf HITLER for the hurt of Germany and the world, and, to sum up, I can, here - and this is necessary for the comprehension of the conduct of SCHACHT as well as of services to HIMMLER - quote a passage from our Goethe, which says everything in few words and discloses the deepest mysteries. Here loes the key to the comprehension of all those followers of HIMMLER. May I quote from "Poetry and Truth" Part 4, Book 20, as follows:
"Although the Demoniac can manifest itself in everything material and immastands in the most wonderful association with man, and constitutes a power disturbing, where not opposed to the world order. For all philosophies and religions have tried, both prosaically and poetically, to solve this riddle and finally to dismiss the matter which they are, in the future, at liberty to do. But the demoniac assumes its most dreadful form when it appears in an overwhelming maesure in a particular person. During my lifetime I have occasion to observe several such persons either closely or from afar. They were not always the best of persons, either spiritually or by their talents, and they were seldom recommanded by their goodness of heart. A tremendous force, however, dominates from them, and they exercise an incredible power over every creature, even over the elements,and who can tell how far such an influence will extend. No coalition of honest forces can prevail against them; it is in vain that the better part of humanity attempts to put them in disrepute as aberrants or as impostors,. Humanity as a whole is attracted by them.
They seldom or never find contemporary equals, and nothing short of the Universe itself, against which they initiated the fight, can prevail against them; and these observations can indeed inspire that curious though terrible phrase:
" Nemo contra Deum, nisi Deus ipse". criminally incriminate SCHACHT in any way, and that it can by no means be concluded from this fact that he had been acquiscent, at the time, to the criminal deeds of HITLER and his regime. Indeed, he did not think them possible. Neither was it a case of dolus eventualis, on the contrary: insofar as the violent character of the regime disturbed him, he believed he could, by his appointment to an important post, contribute to the abolition and prevention of those consequences he disapproved, and promote, in his operative sphere, Germany's honorable and peaceful ascension. of power but had helped him to seize power, no single reproach could be made against him. This latter charge is therefore void as evidence of criminal behaviour or of criminal intention. However, there is no need for this argumentation, since actually SCHACHT did not help HITLER to power. HITLER was in power when SCHACHT began to work for him. in 1932 brought him no loss than 230 mandates. These represented about 40% of the total votes. Such an election result for a party had not been seen for decades. Thus, the immediate political future was established in a Government headed by HITLER' thanks to the very rules of the German democratic constitution and of every democratic constitution. Every other method was fraught with the danger of civil war.
It was natural that Schacht, who at that time honestly believed in Hitler's political mission, did not wish to take this road. It was likewise natural that he should become an active link in the chain when he believed that by his attitude he would be able to prevent harmful radicalism from materializing in the political domain. A wise French statesman says:
"We are faced at some time or other and in some way or other by the task of creating advantages or preventing abuses; for this reason a patriotic man, according to my conception, can and must serve any government set up by his country.
serving Hitler at that time. This opinion may have as erroneous as possible and subsequently it has revealed itself completely false as far as Hitler was concerned. Schacht can in no case be criminally charged for acting as he did at that time, neither indirectly nor circumstantially. We must also not forget that the Hitler of 1933 not only seemed to be different from the Hitler of 1938 or even of 1941, but actually was different. At his interrogation Schacht already referred to the transformation caused by the venom of worship by the masse The transformation of such prsonalities is a psycholigical law.
History reveals this in Nero, Constantine the Great and many others. In the case of Hitler, there exist many unsuspected witnesses for the truth of this fact, unsuspected in this sense that a purpose or an intention to violate the law. to raise terror to a principle and to surprise mankind by a war of aggression, can never be imputed to them. I am going to quote a few of them. I could multiply the quotations a hundred fold. 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 character in the world of to-day is Adolf Hitler"; "Hitler directly belongs to the series of those great leaders of mankind who seldom appear more than once in two or three senturies 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 used.
Dr. Dix: I ge your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow the . .. Can you hear me now?
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow th writings of Lord Rothermere to be put in evidence or used.
DR. DIX: The conclusions of the High Tribunal that I was prevented from using quotations from Lord Rothermere I quite interpreted that way, and I believe the Prosecution quite agrees with me that was a matter of argument and was not to be included as evidence. I am of the opinion today that this is correct, that when it comes to the evaluation of evidence, I may quote from the wealth of literary writings from the entire world in order to support my thought This is not a fact which I would like to submit to the High Tribunal that Lord Rothermere told me such and such in order to support my claim, but every one, not only Schacht, but other prominent people even outside of Germany, says or had the same opinion of Hitler personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has already indicated its refusing to allow this to be used as evidence because it doesn't 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: Very well. May I ask that the Tribunal turn to a quotation from Sumner Welles, and a passage which to me seems very important from the book written by the last ambassador? I should be grateful if I could quote these two passages. However, I don't know, if one tried to prove that even an intelligent man holds a certain opinion and is entitled to hold it, first of all, the most convincing proof for that is the fact that other intelligent people have the same view. I am losing the main strength of my argument if I am not permitted to quote my next two passages, and I should like to ask that I may read the quotation from Sumner Welles and Henderson.
THE PRESIDENT: I haven't 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 don't 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 the year 1944: "Economic circles in each of the Western European democracies and of the New World welcomed Hitlerism." And it is only right, when Great Britain's last ambassador in Berlin, even during the war, states in 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 the interesting remark: "It is possible Hitler was an idealist himself in the beginning." The Government of Great Britain would never have concluded a naval treaty with Hitler-Germany already in April 1935, and therewith have contributed in a calculated way to a modification of the Versailles Treaty, if she had not had entire confidence in Hitler and his Government. After all the same holds good for all international treaties concluded by Hitler, including the treaty with Russia concluded in August 1939. And it is today deeply affecting when an ethically prominent man as the late British Prime Minister Chamberlain declared in a speech not later than January 1939 -- namely at a time when Schacht had long since been treading the obscure paths of conspiracy, and in spite of the events of the year 1938 -- that he had gained the definite impression from Hitler's previous speech that it was not the speech 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. Would one, for the years 1933 to 1939, deny a German the right to come to the same opinion about Hitler in good faith? This is also not inconsistent with the fact that Schacht entered office as Minister for Economic Affairs only after 30 June 1934. Only in retrospect can one fully realize the monstrosity of these events. In June 1934 we were still in the midst of a revolutionary movement. History can probably ascertain similar occurrences in each such revolution. I need not prove this individually; neither should I like to do so here for the reasons previously discussed. The events of 30 June were just as little or even less reason for Schacht to turn away from Hitler with disgust, as they were not enough to prevent the governments in the world from not only continuing diplomatic relations with Hitler in fullconfidence, but also rendering him great honors and allowing him to score important successes in foreign policy, especially after 1934. he put himself at the disposal of Hitler's government, it is completely superfluous, indeed it would be of minor importance to intend, by means of long statements, to excuse individual acts such as the petition addressed to the Reich President in 1932 or his letter to Hitler in the same year. For someone who knows life, the explanation for them comes quite naturally out of this fundamental attitude of Schacht. Should this attitude prove to be unobjectionable as far as criminality and the technique of handling evidence is concerned, then no such documents can be adduced against Schacht. All that matters is the principle. The sane holds true for Schacht's participation in the socalled meeting of industrialists. On this subject I should like to remark by way of clarification (see Schnitzler affidavit), that Schacht neither conducted this meeting nor administered these funds exclusively for the National Socialist Party.
of Schacht's attitude towards the seizure and establishment of power: "Schacht has been an untrustworthy and shifty follow, Schacht betrayed the cause of democracy at that time. I (the witness) therefore refused in 1943 to join a government that should overthrow Hitler with Schacht's participation." ment, left his ministerial seat and room on 20 July 1932 when the President of the Police of Berlin, accompanied by two police officers, called on him demanding his removal from office with the assertion that they had been authorized to do so by the Reich President. Severing left the field, as he said himself, to avoid bloodshed. In spite of the great respect which I feel towards Severing's clean political character, I am forced, to my regret, to deny him any right to give a good name to statesmen who, unlike him and his government coalition, would not remain in lethargic passivity. Severing and his political friends do not, indeed, bear responsibility before a Judge but before history for allowing Hitler to seize power, a disproportionately greater responsibility than Hjalmar Schacht, because of their indecision and, finally, their lack of political ideas. This responsibility will be all the greater, as the witness claims to have already recognized tit that time that Hitler's accession to power meant war. Even if one believes him to possess this correct political intuition, his and his political friends' responsibility will be all the greater in view of their passivity then and later, and on the other hand disproportionately greater than that of Hjalmar Schacht. Our German workers, however, are really no mere cowardly than the Dutch. Our hearts rejoiced to hear a witness give evidence here on oath about the manly courage of Dutch workers, who dared to strike under the very bayonets of the invading army. The justifiable adherence of Severing and his political friends to the German working class might perhaps have induced them not to watch the dissolution of the trade unions with such blunt passivity, as was the case in 1933 whom their natural leaders, such as Severing and his colleagues, should have attempted & little and exposed themselves. Finally, 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 the truth of the poet's words addressed to the workers did not need to be feared:
"All wheels stand still when it is your strong arm's will." The National Socialist Government at that time was quite well-informed about this and had corresponding apprehensions. This was demonstrated also by Goering's testimony on 13 October 1945, minutes of which were cited and handed over by Professor Kempner on 16 January 1946. Goering said: "You must Consider that at that tine the activity of the communists was extraordinarily strong and that our new Government as such was not very secure." But even this strong arm just mentioned required a guidance which remained denied to the working class. Men like Severing were called to it.
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 make a final judgement. I restrict myself to revealing this problem and to attributing with complete human respect a strong and painful measure of self-righteousness to the witness Severing if he feels himself called upon to accuse others when examining the question, who, from the view point of history,is guilty of the seizure and strengthening of the power of Nazism; namely, if, in contrast to Schacht, he foresaw intuitively the later evolution of Hitler, instead of submitting himself in humility to the judgement of history with reference to his assuredly decent disposition and pure volition.
the purity of historical truth, that at the beginning of Nazism-with the exception of an intervention from abroad-- there were two power groups who could perhaps have liberated Germany; the army and the working class, both of course under corresponding guidance. mental remark by such a blameless and distinguished man as Severin 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 explanation of Severing's incriminating testimony. Severing has further raised the reproach of political opportunism against Schact In politics, the boundary between opportunism and statesmanlike efficacious dealing is very fluid. Before the conduct of Schact in 1932 and 1933 is appraised as that of an opportunist, his past should be looked into. Since 1923 this past was lived in complete publicity. It was partly the object of those proceedings, it is partly juridical notoriety. This past speaks rather for the fact that Schacht does what he judges to be right, not only with great lack of consideration, but also with great courage. He proved his courage as conspirator against Hitler, as is necessarily proved by analysing this activity as conspirator, and as Gisevius expressly described him here.
But lot us now go back to 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 exchange gamble. He fought from 1925 to 1929 against the debt and the expenditure policy of the municipalities and by this drew on himself the enmity of all mayors. He signed the Young-Plan in 1929 and thus defied the opposition of the heavy industry's circles and in pursuit of this, he fought since 1934 against the errors and abuses of the Nazi ideology and never carried out a desire or an order for himself which ran contrary to his conscience or his sense of justice.
time. Certain preachers of ethics of which there are many today ples, should not forgot that steel has two qualities, not only firmness, but also pliancy. it now, would take us beyond 1:00 o'clock. I would be grateful to your Lordship if perhaps we could have the recess now. I an now coming to my remarks in Appendix No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think you had better go on until 1:00 o'clock.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, in the translated copy which you have before you, there are two appendices at the end, two pieces of additional material. The matters dealt with in these appendices happened after I had given my speech to be translated, and therefore, since I had to work in this material somehow, the only way I could do it was by way of an appendix. of the testimony given by witnesses. something beyond the translation of my pleading available to it, which I could not work into this translation because the cause for it came up at a time after the submission of my final pleading for translation, namely the statements of my colleague. Dr. Nelte against the credibility of the witness Gisevius. Since I dwell here on the evaluation of a witness, it is the proper time here to answer this.
Insofar as my colleague Dr. Nelte found fault with the objective reliability of the testimony of the witness Gisevius in respect to his statements incriminating the defendants Keitel, Gooring, and so on, I refrain from any statements. May the prosecution 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 morals of this witness and thus also indirectly the reliability of his testimony concerning Dr. Schacht.
This demands my opinion, and namely one of a very basic nature.
Your Honors, it is here where the souls separate. An unbridgeable cleavage opens up between Schacht's standpoint and the standpoint of all those who make these thoughts their own with which Dr. Nelte attempts to disqualify morally Gisevius, the deceased Canaris, Oster, Nebe, and so forth. I at least owe to my client this, to state the following very clearly and unequivocally: and enmity to the quick against everyone who leads the fatherland and his own people criminally into misery and destruction. Such a leader is an enemy of the fatherland; in his influence on the fatherland he is many times more dangerous than the enemy in war. Every means, and namely a corsaire un corsaire et demi is just against such a criminal state leadership. genuine patriotism and, as such, highly moral, even during war. Whoever can still entertain the slightest doubt after the findings of this trial and finally also after the testimony of Speer about the cynic statement by Hitler in respect to the destruction of the German people, that Adolf Hitler was the greatest enemy of his people, in short a criminal to this people, for the removal of whom every means would have been just and every, yes every deed would have been patriotic. Worlds separate Schacht from everyone in the prisoners' dock who does not recognize this. save myself after this fundamental clarification to disprove details of the attacks of Dr. Nelte against Dr. Gisevius. Insofar as Dr. Nelte misses readiness to ant in these resistance groups to which Dr. Schacht belonged, I only point to the many dead who were hanged on 20 July, whore Schacht belongs to the very few survivors, and he, as well, was to be liquidated yet in Flossenburg I point to the fatal victims, numbering thousands, of the political judiciary of the Hitlerian state.
The war of conspiracy against Hitler, and the necessity for cunning was not less dangerous to life and limb than exposure at the front.
Dr. Gisevius has admitted immediately to my loyally crossexamining colleague Dr. Kubuschock his error, resulting from the prohibition of I do not have to add anything further.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 15 July 1946)
DR. DIX: May it please the Tribunal, I have concluded so far with the consideration of the probative value of the statements made here by the witness Severing and Gesavius.
If I find up now the evaluation of Schacht's conduct up to about 1935 and enter henceforth the period from 1935 to 1937, I may emphasize once more that, for the sake of saving time, I deliberately do not repeat the arguments which fully brought out and brought to the knowledge of the Tribunal during the examination, thus the non-partipation of Schacht in the legislation, which led to the abrogation of the rights if the people, as this took place before his entry int the Cabinet. The deciding event for the stabilization of Hitler's power the amalgamation of the offices of the Reichs President and of the Chancellor of the Reich and on Hitler's personality, were also beyond his assistance and responsibility. By this decree the Army took their oath to Hitler. The Chancellor of the Reich had not only authority ever the Amy. It is not my task to investigate who we to bear the political responsibility and historic guilt for this law; in any case it is not Schacht. Similarly it was before his entering upon office that the basic anti Jewish laws were passed. He was quite surprised by the later Nuernberg laws . The decree dealing with the exclusion of Jews from the, German economic life dated 12 November 1933 and the order about confiscation of Jewish property and pessessions of 3 December 1938 were issued after he had left from the pest of Minister of Economy and thus without his active collaboration. The same applies to the decree excluding Jews from the Reichs Laber Services, which did not weigh heavily on them. The law concerning the death penalty for can cealment of Foreign currency, the so-called law of betrayal of the people, was not directed against the Jews but solely against heavy industry and high, finan it was not made by Schacht but by the Minister of finance. Schacht did not want such laws to be the cause of rupture, because he thought he had more important tasks to perform.
This does not seen to be of such great importance, because Schacht had so let himself in for unpleasantness by his advocacy of the Jews in the Jewish question by his public speeches and his exposees to Hitler, that it would be quite unjust to disqualify him politically or morally, not to mention juridically for this reason. I remember particularly the Reichsbank speech after the anti Jewish pogroms in November 1938, the speech at Koenigsberg, the exposees of the year 1935 and so forth. In the Third Reich Schacht was considered the most courageous and active protec tor of the Jews. I only refer to the letter of the Frankfurt business man Merton which was submitted to the court and to the illustrating statement of the witness Reyler. According to the latter, Himmler, when Heyler reproached him for the events of November 1938, replied that it had been ultimately the fault of the economic administration that things have gene so far. From a man like Herr Schacht one could not expect anything more the that he exorcised a constant restraining influence in the Jewish question and sot himself against the will of the party. charge of the prosecution as follows : Schacht is not being prosecuted for anti-Semitism, but for activities, which stand in causal connection with the atrocities committed against the Jews within the framework of the war of planned aggression. From this it results that a denial of the guilt of a war of aggression leads with compelling logic to the denial of any guilt of the atrocities which were committed against the Jews during the war. Justice Jacks has made some phases of the legistative treatment of the Jews during Schacht's ministry the subject of his cross-examination. The questions asked and answer herein are irrelevant according to the Charter and, the previously mentioned authentic interpretation of this part of the prosecution by Justice Jackson. The anti-semitic legistation of the Third Reich and the personal attitude toward proceedings only so far as they are connected with ether crimes, which were committed according to the Charter, as for the conspiracy to wage war, the extermination and so forth. According to the Charter they cannot be an offense in themselves, nor even one against humanity. Only those defendants are punishable for their deeds, who can be proved to have participated in the planning of a we of aggression and its unhuman consequences against the Jews.
A prequisite for their conviction, however, is that they recognized and desired this goal and its result. tion (Erfelgshaftung) in criminal law. According to the Charter, that man is punishable who desired war and also the inhuman actions connected with it, but the incriminating activity must always have occurred within the scope of carrying out such a plan. This purely legal view in itself excludes the conviction Schacht because of atrocities against the Jews. of Justice Jackson and myself, must likewise be clarified at this point, otherwise we will be talking at cross purposes.
During the testimony Justice Jackson has repeatedly pointed out that the defendant is not being charged with antiSemitism, as such, that he is not being charged with his opposition to the Versailes Treaty, that he is not being charged with his ideas and statements on the so-called, Lebensraum problem, and thus, the food problem of the Centraleuropean nations, that he is not being charged with his colonial aspirations, but that on the contrary he is being charged with all this only to the extent that it has served, with his knowledge and desire, for the preparation ,of a war of aggression. With this objection Justice Jackson tried to cut short certain, questions and discussions.
if the Prosecution would not take with one hand all it gives with the other. Because with this other hand, the course of argumentation, everything, namely his alleged anti-semitism etc. is used as indirect proof and evidence that Schacht had prepared and desired this war of aggression. The prosecution does not count all that as a criminal fact in itself, but as indirect testimony, as evidence. Therefore, in its valuation as evidence, I must take these problems into consideration. The Jewish question has, I think, been dealt with. In the problem, of vital space (Lebensraum) I can only refer, in order to save time, to what Schacht, during his interrogation, has stated forjustification ofhis statements and activities. The colonial problem was the subject of cross-examination by Justice Jackson in as much as he tried to prove by his representations and questions that colonial activity by Germany was impossible without world deomination or militarily prepared command of the seas, at least. The further development of this idea would result in the defendant Schacht being charged with the fact that his struggle for colonies logically implied the planning of a war of aggression. This is a wrong inference. I think that Justice Jackson's conception of Colonial Policyis too imperialistic a one. Whoever desires colonies for his country, without dominating the world or at least the sea, starts out with colonial aspirations under the supposition of a lasting state of peace vis a vis the stronger seapowers. Her Herchant Navy tonnage carried on the necessary traffic with these colonies. Her pre-war merchant Navy tonnage would have also been sufficient. Air communications, in reply to Justice Jackson's question, would not have been needed. Nothing supports the presumption that by his desire for colonies, Schacht would have aimed at a removal of foreign naval supremacy by war. Concerning his general conduct, one can hardly take him for so foolish. France and Holland likewise possess colonies, but certainly do not control the sea routes. This representation of the Prosecution is indeterminative. The tribunal moreover knows well, that during the years before this war nearly all the statesmen of the victorious powers have proved sympathetic to these colonial aspirations of Germany, as shown in many public speeches.
I come now to the subject of rearmament, i.e. to the activity of Schacht in his capacity as President of the Reichsbank and Reich Minister of Economics until 1937, i.e. until a date when he had changed from a loyal servant of Adolf Hitler to a traitor against him, and when he chose the dark ways of tricks and dissimulation coupled with preparations for murder. Lecarne Pact and of other treaties, as indirect proof as evidence of his aggressiondelus. The first involves the question whether in general any objective treaty violations took place and whether, in the affirmative case, these treaty violations must be looked upon as indicatives of on aggressiondel in the person of a mentor of the Reich Government, i.e. also in the person of Schacht. It is impossible and also unnecessary to exhaust within the framework of this pleading the problem whether and how far treaty violations were committed. My colleague Horn has touched on this question also. Only a short remark may serve to prove at least the problematical solution of this question. This again is important for subjective estimation. There are no eternal treaties in the domain of civil jurisdiction and still less in the domain of international Law. The clausula rebus sic stantibus plays a much more important role in the domain of international law, i.e. in the political intercourse between nations, than in the lawful intercourse between individuals. One has to be very careful not to adapt the principles of the low level of civil law to the high and wide domain of the international jurisdiction.
The international law has its own dynamics. The highly political intercourse between nations is subject to other juridical aspects than the commercial and personal intercourse between individuals. The most striking proof of the correctness of this thesis is the juridical argumentation of the bill of indictment, in so far as it deals with the sentence"nulla poena sine leage peenale" and demands the individual punishment of the loading statement of an aggressor nation instead of the issue of sanctions. Particularly the man who affirms the conception of the Prosecution in this respect, thus acknowledges the dynamics of International Law and the fact, that International Law develops in accordance with its own laws.
come to an end by a formal repeal but die in the course of the evolution of facts. They die out necessarily by themselves. In individual instances one might be of a different opinion whether this is the case. But it does not also the accuracy of this established fact. The remilitarisation of the Rhineland and also the introduction of general conscription, the extent of rearmament which Schacht also desired and approved, the voluntary "Anschluss" of Austria to Germany approved of and aimed at by Schacht, certainly are offenses against the meaning and text of the above mentioned pacts, particularly the Versailles Treaty. If, however, such violations are only answered by formal protestations, whilst very friendly relations continue yes even honour is shown to the offending nation; if agreements are concluded which alter the principal perception of such a treaty, as for instance the Naval Pact with Great Britain, one can very well advocate the opinion that such a subjective point of view at least finds its justification. of an Armament Pact, as for instance the Naval Pact with Great Britain, is the recognition of the military sovereignty of both nations. The latter being denied to Germany was one of the main points of view of the Versailles Treaty. I know the Court's wish or rather prohibition in regard to this matter, and of course I shall bow to it. But I must and I may speak about the legal possibility and therefore the innocence, criminally speaking, of Schacht's subjective opinions on the question of treaty violation. Even if therefore one wished to defend the point of view that the said treaties have not become obsolete, one cannot, as far at least as its honesty is concerned, doubt the subjective justification of a contrary opinion. But if this is answered in the affirmative, these treaty violations are no longer any proof of the criminal intention of a war of aggression. But that is the only point in question. For the violation of treaties, as such, is not yet considered by the Charter as a punishable act. Here also Schacht can justify his honest belief by reference to similar ways of considering the question by loading foreign statesmen, in the case of which the suspicion of a German will for aggression is therefore, as a matter of course, logically excluded from the very beginning.