the name of Lehrer Matt, who was liberated very soon. I believe he was incarcerated for just three or four months, and in another case a certain Mr. Lebender, who had been active in labor unions. He also was liberated after a very short period of time. If I remember correctly, it was about the year 1935 or perhaps the beginning of 1936, although I cannot place the exact time when the last inmates were freed from the camp at Dachau and were greeted with music when they arrived. left wing parties from Dachau? which he could not really be responsible for, that he had liberated these people, and so forth and so on, but it was also pointed out that the Gauleiter was really responsible for such things and that he really should know just what he had to do and what should be done in each case. liberations and told him that measures would be taken against him if he continued in this procedure? If you know nothing about these matters, please say so.
DR. MARX: Then, I have concluded my questioning of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any member of the Defense Counsel wish to ask questions Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: No, no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Then the witness can retire.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that conclude your case, Dr. Marx?
DR. MARX: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we go on with Dr. Schacht's case next.
DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): I begin my presentation with the calling of Dr. Schacht as a witness and I ask your Lordship to permit Dr. Schacht to enter the witness box.
HJALMAR SCHACHT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Will you state your full name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
The Witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down BY DR. DIX: Schleswig Holstein, which until 1864 belonged to Denmark. My parents were both born as Danish citizens. After the annexation by Germany, my father emigrated to the United States, where three of his brothers had already emigrated, and he became an American citizen. My olrder brothers were born there. Then he had to return to Germany because my mother was not well.
I was educated in Hamburg. First I have studied in Germany and then in Paris and, after I had received my doctor's degree, I was active for two years in economic organizations. Then I went into the banking career. I was for thirteen years at the Dresden Bank, one of the large so-called "D" banks. Then I took over the management of a bank of my own, which was later merged with one of the "D" banks, and in 1923, I left the private career and became Reichswaehrungs Kommissar (Commissioner for the Safeguarding of the Reich Currency), later Reichsbankpresident, and until 1930 I held the office of president of the Reichsbank, at which time I resigned.
Q Why did you resign at that time as president of the Reichsbank?
A In two essential points: There were differences of opinion between the Government and myself, one was internal finance policy of the government. After the terrible catastrophe of the last war and the dictate of Versailles was already behind us, it was necessary in my opinion that the German policy should be to use thrifty and modest methods in order to enter a democratic and socialist government. The government at that time could not see that point. Their policy was such that they started an economy of debt, which to a large extent created debts to foreign countries, and it was quite clear that Germany, which was already in debt on the basis of reparation payments, was in no position to take care of that much foreign currency, which would have been necessary for the repayment of these debts. We were not even able to pay the reparations on our own. time accumulated, and to which policy they also encouraged private industries. I warned continuously, abroad and within the country, against such a policy of debt. The foreign bankers did not listen to it; neither did the German Government. It was during that period where, if one passed Unter Den Linden at the Adlon Hotel, one wasn't sure whether there was a financial agent of some kind if one did not want to establish some credit.
There was a great struggle against myself. And then, when Germany was unable to continue paying interest on the debts, I stated again that I had always been against such a policy. That was one reason.
The other reason was in the field of foreign policy. Not only had I contributed to the coming about of the Joenk plan, but in 1929, I had collaborated with the Joenk Committee, and there were a number of improvements brought about for Germany, which now, step by step, were thrown away in the succeeding negotiations at the Hague, and that impaired the financial and economic condition of the nation. I objected to it and, for both of these reasons, in March of 1930, I resigned as Reichsbankpresident as an act of protest.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in that connection, may I callyour attention to Exhibit No. 6 of my document book. If the Tribunal agrees, and in order to shorten the presentation of documents, I should like to call your attention to these documents which are in connection with the questions which I am just treating with the witness, already during the interrogation of the witness.
I believe that this will be agreeable to the Tribunal and it will bertainly shorten the presentation of documents. That is Exhibit No. 6, on page 12 of the German copy of my document book, and on page 8 of the English copy, Your Lordship, Exhibit No. 6. That is an excerpt from statements of Dr. Schacht during the session of the sub-committee for money and credit matters on the 21st of October 1926. I believe it is not necessary that I read the excerpts, these statements. They refer to foreign debts which Dr. Schacht has mentioned. They contain the same thoughts which Dr. Schacht has just expressed before the Tribunal, and they will be a proof that these thoughts are not a construction ex post facto now, and I, therefore, ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of that document without my reading it on toto. BY DR. DIX:
Q You had resigned your office as president of the Reichsbank. What did you do then? citizen. Then I made a trip to the United States, which was during 1930. Shortly after the Reichstag elections or immediately after the Reichstag elections of September, 1930, I left and went to New York via London. presented to me by American friends. with the Party, and with Hitler personally, and when, quite particularly, did you read the Party program in Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? concerned with Party politics. At the age of twenty-six already I was offered very clear career, which I did not accept because I was never interested in Party politics. My interest was always in the field of economics and finance, but, of course, for public affairs, I always had a certain interest, which came from my interest for my country and my people.
character is concerned? My father, throughout his life, has been convinced of democratic ideals. He was a Freemason. He was a cosmopolitan. I had, and I still have, numerous relatives in Denmark on my mother's side; in the United States on my father's side; and to this day I am on friendly terms with them. I grew up with these ideas and I was led in part by these basic ideas of the Freemasons. I never left them entirely. I have always remained in contact with foreign countries. I travelled much, that is, in Europe, with the exception of Ireland and Finland, there is hardly a state and country which I have not visited. I travelled all the way down to India, Ceylon, and Burma. I went to North America frequently and, just before the war broke out, I intended to travel to South America.
Just the same, of course, after the September elections in 1930 produced the result that the Hitler Party surprisingly reached 108 seats, I became interested in that phenomenon; and on board ship going to the United States I read "Mein Kampf," and, of course, also the Party program at the same time. were about Hitler and the Party because everyone was speaking about these events in Germany. At that time in my first publication, which was an interview, I warned clearly and said "If you people in other countries will not change your policy toward Germany, then soon you will have many more adherents of Hitler in Germany than there are now." various meetings, and throughout those lectures I spoke for understanding about questions of reparation, the mistakes in the Treaty of Versailles, the economic difficulties of Germany, and I returned with the impression that the attitude of the American people toward us was indeed a friendly one, a comparatively friendly one. adherents of the National Socialist Party, and it was so that a friend of mine, a director of a Bank, at the beginning of December 1931, invited me to have dinner with him at his house and to meet Hermann Goering there. I did that, and the impression from the appearance and the statements of Goering were not exceptional. He was quite reticent and modest, and he invited me to come to his house once and meetHitler. together with my wife, and on that occasion Feitz Tiessen was also invited. There was the intention that Hitler would come also that evening and talk to us.
On that occasion I noticed that Goering's apartment was very modest. We had pea soup and bacon.
THE PRESIDENT: You are going too fast. Co on.
THE WITNESS: After supper Hitler appeared, and there started a conversation, which worked out in such a manner that about 5 percent of what was said was said by us, and about 98 percent by Hitler.
What he said concerned questions of national interest, in which he agreed absolutely with us. No extravagant demands were stated, but, on the other hand, the national necessities of Germany were stressed throughout. good thoughts, especially intent on avoiding class struggle, strikes, lock-outs and labor disputes, by a main intervention of the State into labor relations and the economic leadership, not excluding private enterprise but taking measures in guiding private enterprise. It seemed to us as if these thoughts were quite reasonable and acceptable. concerned, he did not show any knowledge, and he did not assume to know much about it that evening; but he asked that we should have understanding for his ideas, we people of the economy, and should have sympathy and interest for them. That was the purpose of that evening. but I should like to return to the question I have put before concerning your attitude to the Party Program and the ideology such as it is developed in the book, "Mein Kampf," mainly because you have heard here that the gentlemen of the Prosecution are of the opinion that the Party program as such in certain parts, and also parts of the book, "Mein Kampf," are of a criminal character, and that that criminal character was already noticeable at the beginning when the Party program first appeared, or the book. Therefore, I sould like to ask you to explain your attitude at that time, if possible, and also your attitude of today, toward the Party program and the ideology of National Socialism so far as it can be seen from both books. impression that the opinion of the Prosecution concerning the criminal character of the Party program was a uniform one.
I myself do not find in the Party program any signs for criminal intentions. claimed on the basis of the right for self-determination. The foreign political position, the demands in the field of foreign politics, is only a demand for equality with the other nations; and that the discrimination which has been imposed upon the German people by the Versailles Treaty should be removed is quite clear. settling of excess population. I cannot see any crime in that, because after land and soil one added in parenthesis, colonies. I have always considered that a demand for colonies, which I considered necessary myself a long time before National Socialism came into existence. concerning the exclusion of Jews from civil rights, but, at the same time, it was quite satisfactory that the Jews should be under the same law, regulated by the same law which regulated foreigners in Germany. I have always demanded this legal protection should be given to the Jews, in fact under all circumstances. Unfortunately, they were not given that protection. rights and duties. Public instruction, public education, was stressed, and also sports for the improvement of public health. The struggle against the conscious political lie was demanded, which Goebbels very strongly led later. And, above all the demand was made for the freedom of all religions, and the point of view of a positive Christianity was taken. and I cannot find that therein is found anything criminal. It would be quite peculiar if the world for one decade had continuously had political and cultural contact withGermany if there had been a criminal Party program.
As far as the book, "Mein Kampf", is concerned, there my judgment was the same from the very beginning as it is today.
It is a book written in the worst kind of German, the propaganda writing of a man who was strongly politically minded, a semi-intellectual, which Hitler had shown himself to me to be always.
Subsequently in the book "Mein Kempf", and in part also in the Party program there was one point which made me think a lot, and that was the absolute lack of understanding toward all economic problems. The Party program had a few, very few, slogans, such as "Community interests come before private interests," which were not quite clear. One could understand all sorts of things, and that is quite uninteresting as far as the policy of economics is concerned, and it was quite uninteresting for me.
On the other hand, as regards foreign policy, the book, "Mein Kampf," had, in my opinion, a great many mistakes, because it always toyed with the idea that within Europe the living space for Germany had to be extended. And if these statements did not keep me from cooperating later with the National Socialist Reich Chancellor, then it was for the very simple reason that the expansion of the German space toward the East was made in "Mein Kampf", depending upon the fact that the British Government would approve of it.
Therefore, for myself, who seemed to know British policy very well, it was quite utopian and there I didn't see any danger in these theoretical fantasies of Hitler.
I did not think I had to take them seriously. It was clear to me that every violent change concerning territory in Europe would be an impossibility for Germany and would not be approved by other nations.
On the whole, "Mein Kampf" has a number of very silly and sometimes quite reasonable thoughts; especially, I should like to point out that I like two things; one was that if you are of a different opinion in political respects, that one had the duty to express one's opinion to the government; and another thought, that, though inplace of a democratic or parliamentary government, an authoritative government with a leader should be put; that still that Fuehrer could only exist if he was sure of the approval of the entire people. In other words, that a Fuehrer also depended on elections or plebiscites of the people of a democratic nature.
Q Now, Dr. Schacht, you have described the impression which you had of your first conversation with Adolf Hitler, as well as from studying the party program and reading "Me in Kampf." Did you believe that youcould work with Adolf Hitler and what were the consequences you took from that first conversation with Hitler? because I was a private citizen and not interested in party politics and consequently, after that conversation, as far as I was concerned, or my venture or relations in the Hitler circles, I didn't do at least -- I went back to my farm and I continued to live there. As far as I personally was concerned, I did not take any consequences but there was another consequence. I have said already that I was of course interested in participating in the fate of my country; since that conversation, I repeatedly spoke to Reichschancellor Bruenig and implored him that in continuing his cabinet, he should include the National Socialists in the Reich cabinet, because I believed that only in this way a tremendous impetus, the tremendous propagandistic strength which I had noticed with Hitler, could be caughtand could be utilized by putting them before practical tasks, governmental tasks. One should not leave them in the opposition where they could become more dangerous but one should take them into the government and see what they could achieve within the government and whether it would not kind of polish them. That was the suggestion and the very urgent demand I made to Bruenig and I wish to say that Hitler would have been quite ready at that time for it; according to my impression, Bruenig could not be had for such a policy under any circumstances and later, therefore, get caught underneath the wheel.
Q Let us start here for a moment and deal with the Party. The Indictment states that you were a Party member. Now, Goering has already said that Hitler gave the Golden Party Emblem only as a sort of decoration. Do you have to add anything to that statement made by Goering, and if you knew?
A I do not know whether it has been mentioned here. The Golden Party Emblem at that time in January 1937, was given to all ministers and not only all ministers but also all military personalities which were in the cabinet. Military persons could not become Party members; therefore, the receiving of that Party emblem did not entail membership. On the rest, I think, Goering has stated has as a witness, maybe it is necessary to mention one more thing. If I would have been a Party member, then at the occasion of my dismissal when I was thrown out in January 1943, doubtlessly the Party Court would have gone into action, because it would have been a case of insubordination. against Hitler. I never came before the Party Court and even at the occasion of my dismissal when I had to return the Golden Party Emblem, one did not say that I will be dismissed from the Party because I was not in the Party. I was only told "return the Golden emblem to the Party which you received," which I promptly did. I believe I could not add anything else to the statements already made. member?
A Yes; in this point it is absolutely wrong.
Q. Why didn't you become a Party member?
A. Excuse me, but there were quite a number of points of the National Socialist ideology with which I was in contrast. I do not believe that with my democratic attitude it would have been compatible to change the Party program. It was a program which, not in its wording but in its execution by the Party, in the course of time had not become any more sympathetic to me.
Q. Therefore, there were principal reasons that you did not become a Party member?
A. Yes, for principal reasons, reasons of principle.
Q. How, a biography appeared by Dr. Reuter in 1937. There, also, it is stated that you were not a Party member but that biographer also said, also gives other reasons, more practical reasons why you did not enter because of the possibility to be more influential abroad. Maybe it is important, since the biography has been mentioned in the course of the proceedings. Will you shortly state your position?
A. I believe that Hitler at that time had the impression that I could be useful to him outside of the Party and that some of that may have reached Dr. Reuter but besides, I should like to ask not to be made responsible for the writings of Dr. Reuter; that is my opinion and especially I should like to object against the fact that the prosecutor who presented the brief against me, spoke about Renter's book as an official document. Of coarse, that is only a private work of a journalist whose work I appreciate but who certainly has his own opinion.
Q. Did you, Dr. Schacht, before the July elections in 1932, did you have any public activities for Hitler?
A. Before the July elections of 1932, which brought tremendous success for Hitler, I have never been active either publicly or privately for Hitler, except that once, perhaps, or twice, Hitler sent a Party member to me who had some plans, economic, financial, or as far as currency policies were con- , cerned, and Hitler may have told him that he should speak to me or consult me as to whether these plans were reasonable or not. That was Gauleiter Roeber of Oldenburg; and already before 1943, the Nazis in Oldenburg had already come to power and he was the Prime Minister there and he intended to have a special currency in Oldenburg, which would have as a consequence the same procedure in Saxony, and he would have done the same and Wuertemberg would have had its own money and Baden would have had its own money and at that time, I ridiculed the whole thing and sent a telegram to Hitler, in which I told him "With such miracles the economic needs of the German Reich could not be cured."
If I leave out the cases of that kind which are more or less private matters, then neither privately nor publicly in writing nor in speaking, I had at all been concerned about Hitler and in no way have I ever intervened for the Party before that time.
Q. Did you vote National Socialist in July 1932?
A. No, I wouldn't think of it.
Q. The prosecution now lists a number of points from which it wants to prove that you were an adherent of the National Socialist ideology. I should list them in detail and I wish you would answer to each; first, that you were an opponent of the Treaty of Versailles. Would you like to say something about that?
A. It surprised me indeed to hear that reproach from an American prosecutor. The lieutenant who spoke is probably too young to have experienced it himself but he should know it from his education; at any rate, for all of us who have experienced it at that time, that was one of the most important facts that the Treaty of Versailles had been rejected by America and the United States and, if I am not wrong, with the tremendous disapproval of the entire American people against the Treaty.
contradiction to the solemnly declared 14 points of Wilson, and because in the field of economics there was a lot of nonsense in it which certainly could not work out to the advantage of world economy. But I certainly would not intend to blame the American people of having been adherent to the Nazi ideology. been a German nationalist, not only a German patriot, but a nationalist and expansionist. Would you like to state your position in that respect?
A You, yourself, by emphasizing the word "patriot" have admitted the necessity of one's clarifying just what a nationalist is. more than a thousand years was one of the leading cultural nations of the world. I was proud to belong to a nation which has given to the world men like Luther, Kant, Goethe, Beethoven, to mention only those. I have always interpreted nationalism as the desire of a nation, by moral and spiritual achievement, to become an example for other nations and to achieve a leading position.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If it please the Tribunal, it seems to me that we are getting very far from the relevant charges in this case, and particularly if they are going to be preceded by a statement of the Prosecution's position.
We haveno charge against Dr. Schacht because he opposed the Treaty of Versailles; we concede it was the right of any German citizen to do that by means short of war. Nor do we object to his being a patriotic German by any means short of war. The only purpose has been to find out what his attitude in those matters was in connection with the charge that he prepared and precipitated war. seems to me entirely irrelevant, and I assure the Tribunal we have no purpose in charging that it is a crime to oppose the Treaty of Versailles. Many Americans did that. It is no crime to be a German patriot. The crime is the one defined in the Indictment, and it seems to me we are a long way off from that here, and wasting time.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you say to that, Dr. Dix?
DR. DIX: I was glad to hear that. I was glad to hear what Justice Jackson just said, but I have to quote from Wallenstein, "Before dinner it sounded different." There was no doubt -- and once, because I thought I had misunderstood, I even asked again -- that the criminal character of the Party program, the criminal character of the contents of Mein Kampf, and the opposition to the Treaty of Versailles which was indicative of a crime committed later, that all those things so far, repeatedly in the course of proceedings here, had been reproached to Dr. Schacht in order to strengthen the accusation against him. states, "We do not accuse Schacht for opposing the Treaty of Versailles; we do not assert that he was more than a patriot, that is to say, a nationalist in the sense described before, and we do not raise our arguments in the direction that our statements are indicative of the fact that his later cooperation, financial cooperation, in the rearmament program is proof indicative of his tolerating a war of aggression." intended to put can be spared, and then I forego gladly the mentioning of the whole subject of nationalism, I do not believe that the Prosecution will in Europe, but that we will hear later. these questions.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Of course I made no such statement as Dr. Dix has assumed. My statement was clearly made in the opening, and clearly is now that he had a perfect right to be against the Treaty of Versailles and to be a German nationalist and to follow those aims by all means short of war. I do not want to have put in my mouth the very extensive statements made by Dr. Dix. Versailles Treaty and nationalism and lebensraum, as political and philosophical matters are not for the Court to determine. We are not going to ask you to say whether the Treaty of Versailles was a just document document or not.
It was a document. They had a right to do what they could to get away from it by all means short of war.
The charge against Dr. Schacht is that he prepared, knowingly, to accomplish those things by means of aggressive warfare.
That is the nub of the case against him.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the case for the Prosecution has been clear from the outset, that all those matters are only relied upon when they were entered into with the intention of making war.
DR. DIX: Very true, when indicative of the tolerating of waging of war, and if they are not used for that purpose by the Prosecution -- which Justice Jackson has not yet stated -- then I can forego these questions. misunderstand the Prosecution -- that the intentions of Dr. Schacht toward anaggrossive war were based on these facts, that he was an opponent of the Treaty of Versailles and that he agreed with the intentions of increasing living space. We do not want any academic or theoretical discussions or disputes about the ideas of Lebensraum, but as long as these ideas are considered to be proof of his intentions, he has to have the opportunity of telling the Tribunal just what he meant by Lebensraum, if he may have mentioned itm which I do not know. But I believe, although there is still some matter not quite clear between Justice Jackson and myself, and -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): what you were asking him about was his view; upon nationalism. That is what you were asking him about, his views upon nationalism, and that seems to be a waste of time.
DR. DIX: I have put it up to him that the Prosecution said he was a nationalist and an expansionist, and as a consequence he planned aneggressive war in financing armament, and he has to show -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): What Mr. Justice Jackson has pointed out is that the Prosecution have never said that he simply hold the views of a nationalist and of an expansionist, but that he hold those views and intended to go to war in order to enforce then.
DR. DIX: Yes, your Lordship, but that these opinions and attitudes were proof that he had the intention of contributing to aggressive war, that which we jurists call an indication of his malicious intent, and as long as the reproach which Justice Jackson has made is just an argument of the Prosecution -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): There is no issue about it. He agrees that he did hold these views. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary to go into the fact. The Prosecution say he held the views; he agrees that he held the views. The only question is whether he held them with the innocent intention of achieving them by peaceful methods, or whether he had the alleged criminal intention of achieving them by war.
DR. DIX: I only wish to say one more thing to that. Expansionism has not yet been discussed, because if Dr. Schacht should have had expansionist intentions, then Justice Jackson certainly would not say that he had nothing to say against that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I think that you may ask him questions about the expansionists, his ideas of what expansionists were, what he meant by expansion, but for the rest it seems to me you are simply proving exactly the same as the Prosecution have proved.
DR. DIX: That is quite according to my opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A recesswas taken until 1400 hours.)
BY DR. DIX:
Q. I believe, Dr. Schacht, that both of us will have to speak a little slower and pause between question and answer. an expansionist. Please define your position.
A. Never in my lief did I ever demand even a foot of space that did not belong to Germany, and never had I an idea to that effect. dominate foreign peoples, nor is that a political justice when foreign countries are seized. These are two questions with which we are much concerned at present. stand by nationalism, and just why I was against each and every form of expansionism. Just one sentence will suffice, a sentence from a speech which I ma** in August of 1935. On that occasion I said, and I quote:
"We shall want to express that self respect requires respect for others, and our special task, or our special nature, does not mean that we will make derogatory remarks about others; that if we revere the acts of others we in that way revere our own action; and that an economic rivalry can be prevented through example but not through methods of violence."
Q. According to the opinion of the prosecution, in the year 1936 you made a public threat of war, at which occasion you are alleged to have said that the spirit of Versailles was instrumental in keeping alive belligerency.
I am referring to document AC-415, a document to which the prosecution has referred.
A. I never understood, in the course of this proceeding, how there could be a threat of war in this quotation. The quotation concludes with the words-and I must quote in English because I just have the English words before me:
"The spirit of Versailles is perpetuated in the fury of war, and there will not be a true peace, progress, or reconstruction until the world desists from this spirit. The German people will not tire of pronouncing this *arning." this warning. It seems to be a matter of course that hereby an expression is given to the fact that I am warning others from perpetrating the fury of war. I am not warning only ourselves, but the entire world, to avoid the spirit of Versailles.
Q. The prosecution further accuses you in this connection that you publicly perpetrated the idea of Lebensraum, living space, for the German people. In this special connection reference was made to the speech you made at Frankfurt on the 9th of December, 1936, in which you said that Germany had too little Lebensraum for her people.
A. This speech of the 9th of December, 1936, was a speech which was solely concerned with the colonial problems and rights of Germany. I never demanded any Lebensraum for Germany other than the colonial space. And in this instance, again, I am surprised that just the American prosecutor would accuse me of my efforts in this behalf, because in the fourteen points by Wilson, which regrettably were not adhered to later on, we, the Germans, are given consideration for our colonial interests.