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.
"If you want peace in Europe, give Germany an economic outlet into which Germany can develop and from which she can satisfy her needs. Otherwise Germany will be a center of unrest and a problem for Europe."
I would like to quote one sentence only from a speech I made on one occasion:
"Peace in Europe, together with the peace of the entire world, is dependent upon whether the densely populated spots of Central Europe will have the possibility of life or not." these views with an armed conflict.
I would like to quote another sentence from this same speech:
"I Did not mention this consideration as to the parts of Germany which were separated from her in order that we might draw the conclusion of ideas of revenge; my entire position amd my work is marshalled to the objective of bringing about peace in Europe through peaceful considerations and negotiations."
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please give me the PS numbers and the exhibit numbers of these two speeches?
DR. DIX: I can't at this moment. Your Lordship, I am sorry, but I will try to get these numbers and submit them in writing. The last speech refers to the speech at Frankfurt, and the others--
THE PRESIDENT: That is quite all right. You will let 13 know in writing.
DR. DIX: Yes, indeed.
A (Continuing): Perhaps I might refer to two other sentences from my speech, an article which was published in Foreign Affairs. the well-known American magazin in the year 1937. I have the German translation before me, which says, in the introduction, and I quote:
"I am making these introductory remarks in order to clarify the situation. The colonial problem today, as in the past, is not a question of imperialism or militarism, but today is purely and simply a question of economic existence." this view of mine. I have a statement made by the collaborator of President Wilson, Colonel House, who made a distinction between the "haves" and "have nots", and who was especially influential in speaking for the German colonial problem.
Q Perhaps I can dispense with this. In this connection I would like to point to document submitted by the Prosecution, L-111, U.S.A. Exhibit 630.
This document is concerned with the conversation which you had with the American Ambassador, Davies, and in which you are accused of having threatened a breach of peace indirectly. cannot have peaceful development if there is no means of livelihood for the completely overpopulated Central Europe, and I believe conditions at present show how absolutely right I was -- just what a problem it is and almost what an impossibility to feed these masses of people. And beyond that I had a lively interest to divert Hitler's interest and ideas from the East, and therefore was constantly interested to give him an interest in the colonial idea so that I could divert himself from the crazy ideas of expansionism in the East, and I recall that in 1932, shortly before he assumed office, I had a conversation with him at which for the first time I approached him on these facts and above all told him what utter nonsense it would be to think of an expansion in the East. the colonial problem until at the last in the summer of 1936 I had the possibility to follow my ideas and Hitler gave me the mission which I had suggested to him that I might go to Paris to discuss the possibility of a satisfaction to Germany as far as the colonial problem was concerned and to discuss this problem with the French Government. This actually did happen in the summer of 1936. And for the satisfaction of myself and all other friends of peace, I might say that the regime of Leon Blum which was in office at the time brought as grateful an agreement and understanding regarding the food problem of Europe and that the Government of France under Leon Blum for their part was ready to deal with the colonial problem with the thought of perhaps returning one or two other colonies to Germany. Leon Blum then undertook an agreement with me to inform the British Government about these conversations so that the agreement of the British Government might be reached and to bring a discussion of this problem into being. That actually did take place, but the English Government hesitated so long and when it finally could decide on taking a position in this matter the discussion drag ed on up to the beginning months of the Spanish civil war and was eclipsed and supplanted by the problems of the Spanish civil war, so that a continuation of the discussion on this colonial problem did not take place.
Ambassador Joseph Davies, visited me at Berlin, I was a little bit put out about the slowness with which the British Government was meeting these suggestions of mine, and consequently I came forth with a request for understanding, told Ambassador Navies about this whole matter. I already told him that I tried to work with the representatives of the American Government. I tried to get help and understanding and I tried again and again to advise these gentlemen about domestic developments and domestic conditions within Germany, to tell them as much as possible and to keep them posted and as true friends -- Ambassador Dodd and the other ambassadors who were at Berlin. L-111, is concerned with this conversation with Ambassador Davies, and it is taken from the book which Ambassador Davies wrote about his mission in Moscow, and we will most probably refer to this book later on. just one sentence again, which I would like to quote in English, since I have just the original from the original text at my disposal.
"Schacht's earnestly wrote that some feasible plan could be developed if discussions could be opened and that if successful would relieve the European war menace and relieve peoples of enormous expenditures for armament, that international commerce would give outlet to swift and natural abilities of his countrymen, and change the present desperation into future hope." that is the exhibit US 629, and E.C. 450. According to this affidavit, you alleged declared to Fuller that if Germany could not get colonies through negotiations Germany would just take these colonies, Please define your position as to this statement. dirt, so to speak, and in this connection he says as an answer, "Just give me one word, said by this ran, and I will hang him thereby." I believe, my Lord Justices, that in this court room there isn't a one who at one time or another in his life has said a rather unsuitable word. And how much easier is it when he is speaking in a foreign language of which he is not a complete master!
Mr. Fuller is known to me as a respectable businessman, and this discussion which he reduces to affidavit is indubitably reduced according to the best of his knowledge.
He himself is saying correctly that even if he had tried to reproduce and put down the exact words he could not guarantee that each and every word had been said. But if I did say these words, I meant only what I said and nothing else, that we Germans must have colonies and we shall have them. Whether I said, "We will take them," or "We will get them," that, of course, it is impossible for me to say with assurance today after a period of ten years have elapsed.
According to the accusation, the expression, "We will take them," these words are a little bare in effect and colorless and therefore I believe he just added a trifle, for he said twice in his indictment that allegedly said that we would take these colonies by force, and on a second occasion he said that we would take these colonies by the force of arms. But the force of arms are not mentioned in the total affidavit of fuller. Not a word to that effect is mentioned and even if I had used that word or had even just alluded to the French, Mr. Fuller would have had to say reasonably enough, you just tell us that you wanted to take the colonies by force; how do you expect to do that? It would have been utter nonsense to assert that Germany would be able to take overseas colonies by force. She lacked the predominance of the sea which was necessary for this process. conversation he continued immediately -- and I quote;
"A little while ago you mentioned that your necessary war materials could not be obtained through German lack of foreign exchange. Would stabilization help you?" take colonies by force-- something which I never said and which is contrary to my nature and my belief -- he immediately goes on to foreign exchange and to stabilization. ring of neighboring states in Europe. the Prosecution. In a previous interrogation, I was accused and the interrogator referred to the fact -- and I quote the interrogator, "On 16 April, on the occasion of the Paris conference in connection with reparations payments, Schacht said, 'Germany can pay in general only if the Corridor and Upper Silesia are returned to Germany'".This is the interrogation of 24 August 1945.
According to the verbatim record of the interrogation, I answered:
"It may be that I have made such a statement." fifteen years before, naturally, I did not recall the wording of that expression had made a remark, and since I had to assume that if the Prosecution submitted this record to me, that it would be a stenographic and a correct record. For that reason, I did not dispute this remark that I allegedly had made, and I said that it might be that I said something to that effect. The Prosecution takes a "maybe" and out of that reconstructed the following sentence:
"This quotation was read to Schacht, and he said it to be correct."
This assertion by the Prosecution is therefore wrong. I said, "It may be that I said something to that effect," but I did not say that this statement that was submitted to me was correct. of my book, a book which I wrote about the ending of reparations payments, which was published in 1931 and in which I put down my statement about the matter which we are dealing with now, and I have the exact wording and I would like to say that this book has been submitted in evidence and from this wording the following arises, which I said verbatim:
"Regarding the problem of German food and food supplies, it is especially important that import of foodstuffs has been decreased --"
I beg your pardon -- "That import will be decreased." I an sorry again. I am not reading correctly:
"That the import of foodstuffs will be decreased and partially made up the through home production. Therefore, we cannot let the fact be overlooked that agricultural surplus territories in the eastern part of Germany have been lost by surrender and that a large territory which was almost exclusively agrarian, has been separated from the Reich. Therefore, the economic welfare of this part of the territory is decreasing steadily and the Reich Government must support it constantly and subsidize it. Therefore, suitable measures should be taken to eliminate these conditions, which are hindering Germany's ability to pay".
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, this is from our document book, Exhibit 16, German page 38, English page 44. to me in the interrogation, and in no way can we draw the conclusion in consequence that I was for taking back of these areas. What I demanded was that the fact of the separations of these areas be considered when Germany's ability to pay was taken into account and should be given consideration. If now the Prosecutor in his speech erred and said, "I would like to point out that this area is the same about which in September 1939 the war started," I believe it is an insinuation which characterizes the interrogator. evidence of which you are accused of a will to aggression, the Prosecution is asserting that you had a wish for the Anschluss of Austria. Will you please take your position as to this accusation? and spiritually and culturally it was considered something to be hailed. But that the Anschluss of Austria would not be an aggrandizement for Germany, but rather a detriment to Germany, that is something I never concealed, but the wish of the Austrian people to belong, to be incorporated into Germany -- I took that wish as my own and said that if here there are six and a half million people who made public utterance of their wish and made a spontaneous wish, even in 1919, to be incorporated into the larger Germany Reich, that was a point to which no German could be opposed, but had to hail it with gladness as in the interest of Austria, and in that sense I was always for the wish of Austria to belong to the Reich and to respect that wish, if the Anschluss could be carried through in line with political interests.
speaking too fast and that the interpretation is lagging behind a little bit. Will you please speak a little slower. Germany? of any such thing. Of course, Czechoslovakia was a European problem, and it was regretable that in that state, which had five and a half million Czechs, two and a half, million Slovaks and about three million Germans, the German element had no means of expression in that state, but just because the Czechoslovakian problem was not a purely German-Czech problem but also a Slovak-Czech problem I sought solution of this problem in such a way and wished it to be in such a way that Czechoslovakia should constitute a federated state, similar, perhaps to Switzerland; that it would be a political unit and perhaps culturally separate, so that the unity of her German, Czech and Slovak states could be guaranteed.
Q. What was your opinion and attitude to the problem of the war; by that I mean, as far as telepathy, ideology, and practical considerations are concerned?
A. I always considered war as one of the most devastating things to which mankind is exposed and on basic principles throughout my entire life I was a pacifist.
Q. Dr. Schacht, you certainly during your life of thoughts and contemplations most likely thought about the basic and deep differences between true and ethically based soldierism and militarism and its degenerate forms. What did you mean by the latter and what was your attitude toward the latter, that is, militarism?
A. Of course I saw the necessity of defense of country in a serious case of throats and I stood for that theory. In that sense I was always in favor of a Wehrmacht armed forces, but the profession of a soldier I considered to be a lot of deprivation and of a willingness to sacrifice, not because perhaps during a war the soldier has to give up his life -- that was the duty of every citizen -- but because this entire effort was martial to the fact that the trade which he had learned should never have to be put into practice. A soldier, a professional officer, a career officer, who is not a pacifist by nature and by education, has really missed his calling in my opinion. Consequently, I was always an opponent of every military digression and excess. I was against militarism, but I considered that a soldierdom of responsibility was the highest calling to which a citizen could be called.
Q. Now, George Messersmith says, as you know, Consul General of the United States at Berlin, in one of his various documents and affidavits produced by the Prosecution, that you had told him, and repeatedly told him, about intents of aggression on the part of the Nazis. Will you please state your position in that regard?
A. First of all, I would like to remark that I never made a statement of that sort, neither to Mr. George Messersmith, nor to anyone else. As far as these three affidavits of Mr. Messersmith are concerned, and which were submitted by the Prosecution, I would like to make a further statement to that.
Mr. Messersmith asserts of having had frequent contact with me and of having had numerous private conversations with me, and I would like to state here now that, according to my exact memory, I saw George Messersmith two or three times in my entire life. Mr. George Messersmith is picturing himself as having had numerous contacts and many private conversations with me, and he asserts further that his official capacity brought me in contact as president of the Reichsbank and as minister of economics.
I do not recall having received Mr. Messersmith once in my office. Mr. George Messersmith takes these two or three discussions and wants to characterize me. He calls me cynical, proud, doubletongued. I am, unfortunately, not in a position to give an equally comprehensive picture of the character of Mr. Messersmith, but I must dispute his credibility of reliability.
I would like to quote a rather general remark by Mr. Messersmith, too, as a basis. In his affidavit of the 30th of August, 1945, PS-2386, Mr. George Messersmith says, and I quote:
"When the Nazi Party took over Germany, it represented only a small part of the German population," Germany by the Nazi Party, it had about forty per cent of all Reichstag seats and that Mr. Messersmith calls it a small part of the German population. If diplomatic reporting is as reliable as it is everywhere, it is a small wonder that nations do not understand each other.
I would like to correct a specific remark by Mr. Messersmith. Mr. Messersmith asserts, as I have quoted just a minute ago, that his duty brought him in contact with me as minister of economics. In his affidavit of the 28th of August, PS-1760, Mr. Messersmith says, and I quote:
"During the reign of terrorist activity in May and June of 1934, I had already assumed by duties from Vienna." hand, Mr. Messersmith, already in May of 1934, assumed his official duties at Vienna; but this does not prevent Mr. Messersmith from asserting that his official duties brought him in contact with me, and in frequent contact with me, as minister of economics.
I believe this will suffice to show the memory of Mr. Messersmith and to present it in the true light.
Q. In a similar connection, the Prosecution repeatedly referred to the diary of the former Ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Dodd, which diary was written by his children after his death on the basis of his private entry. This document has the number US-461. The Prosecution quotes from this diary repeatedly with the hope of proving that Mr. Dodd, too, considered you a warmonger. I know, of course, that you were a friend of Mr. Dodd's, a fact which is shown in his diary. Can you tell me how the two statements can be reconciled?
A. First of all, I might say that Ambassador Dodd was one of the most decent personalities I have always met. Undoubtedly, he was professor of history, a good historian. He had studied at universities. I believe that he would turn in his grave if he could know that the notes which he put down rather casually were put together without commentary and without investigation and printed.
Mr. Dodd, I am sorry to say, had one characteristic which made dealing with him a little difficult. I am referring to his steadfastness of character which made him more cautious as far as strangers were concerned. He found it rather hard to find himself understood easily and fluently, and he was hardly in a position to receive opinions of others in the right light. Many things that were told him were misunderstood by him, and he saw these things in a wrong light. would like to quote, which shows the point I am trying to make. Here he says: "I talked fifteen minutes with Phipps, the Ambassador at that time, without accumulating evidence of Germany's intensive war activity." This statement dates from the autumn of '34 and I believe no one is able to say that in the autumn of 1934 there was any thought of a war activity on the part of Germany.
Mr. Dodd uses the expression "war" undoubtedly in the place of armament. He says "war" instead of "armament". In that sense, I believe he misinterpreted my words. And, as further evidence for the difficulty which one had in order to make oneself understood to Dodd, that the Foreign Office asked him at one time to please bring a secretary for the discussion with the Foreign Office, a secretary who could take notes so that misunderstanding would be avoided.