"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.
I believe, therefore, that part of these statements by Mr. Dodd are apt to be misunderstood, and I can only say what I have already said about Mr. Messersmith, that of course I never talked about intent of war.
Q Now, in this diary it says that he was friendly to you. Do you have any proof for this friendly position to you?
A Mr. Attorney, if perhaps I might refer to the correspondence with Henderson-.
A Then I shall just confine myself to this question. Dodd was entirely friend to me, and I respected him deeply. As a sign of his friendship I saw that shortly before his departure from Berlin in December of 1937 he visited me at my home, and this incident is also dealt with in his diary, and I could like to quote just one sentence: "I went to Dr. Schasht's home in Dahlem. I wished especially to see Schacht, whose life is said to be in danger." End of quotation.
In other words, Mr. Dodd had heard of an imminent attack on my life on the part of National Socialists, and considered it important enough and took it as a reason for coming to my home personally in order to warn me. his final visit to me just a few days before he returned to America. At that time he again called on me and told me urgently that I should go with him, or as soon after him as possible, to America, to change my residence to America; that I would find a very pleasant welcome in America. I believe he would never have said that to me if he had not had a certain degree of friendship for me. the deceased ambassador would have done you these good sevices if he had considers you a warmonger and a friend of the Nazis, and especially--and I would like to say this for the benefit of the High Tribunal-- I would ask you to define your position to see whether I am correct, if one thinks and remembers that Mr. Dodd belonged to the few accredited diplomats in Berlin who very obviously had no sympathy of any sort to the regime in power, on the other hand, met it with 100 percent opposition Dr. Schacht, please, I would like you to define your opinion on that which I am saying.
You will remember that those diplomats who politically and socially kept their distance from Hitler's regime, as the ambassador from Holland, Monsieur Limb Stirum, or the amnassador from Finland, who was a great Social Democrat, Rujloki, how most of these diplomats were recalled by their Governments. How was it that a Nazi opponent like Dodd could have done you such great services of friendship, could have done these services for someone whom he considered a friend of the Nazis?
Do you agree with my opinion?
A. Yes. I am entirely of the same opinion.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I certainly object to going into this kind of sermonizing back and forth between the box and the bar. It seems to me that the witness has been allowed to say everything that Mr. Dodd has ever written and to put in his mend what he thinks Dodd meant. He has allowed him to go to great lengths characterizing all American representatives, but it seems to me that this is utterly off the track, and improper, for this witness to give a characterization of him in comparison with other ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives.
There is no request here for information about facts. I reiterate, we are not accusing D.r Schacht here because of his opinions. We are accusing him because of very specific facts which there seems great reluctance to get to and deal with.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you should go on, Dr. Dix, and pass from this part of it, pass on from these documents.
DR. DIX: Perhaps I might mention very briefly that it is entirely too far from me or from Dr. Schacht to give our opinions on political or diplomatic personalities, but, on the other hand, if the Prosecution produces the affidavits or diaries of these diplomata and uses these documents as pieces of evidence against the defendant in this proceeding, the defendant-
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you would put questions and put them shortly, it would be much better, and we should get on much faster.
DR. DIX: Yes. I have been trying to put brief questions, your Lordship. I only said what I did at this point, because I would like to follow the procedure as prescribed by the High Tribunal, and I would like to shorten the time to be used in documentary material.
I would like to deal with the reliability of Dodd's diary. That is Exhibit 43 in my document book; German text, page 194; English text, page 202. Here we are concerned with the correspondence between the published of the German diary and Sir Neville Henderson. It deals with some misstatements and misquotations of the German diary. I will dispense with a rather long letter by Sir Neville Henderson -- there are five long pages -- and will cite just a few short sentences.
On page 196 of the German text, Sir Neville Henderson writes: "Take, for instance, the first statement attributed to me about Neurath. It is entirely impossible, as far as Hitler is concerned --" and so on and so forth.
Then on the same page, in the middle of the page, next paragraph:
"And it is the same with the general discussion. It is quite inconceivable that I should have spoken, as Dodd records, about Bismarck and annexing Czechoslovakia and other countries." says: "Nor could I possibly have said that 'Germany must dominate the DanubeBalkan zone.'" And on the next page, second paragraph:
"The remark attributed to me that England and Germany 'must control the world' is pure balderdash and hardly fits in with the preceding sentence about the United States." not believe it necessary for me to quote them. I request the High Tribunal to take official notice of this document in its entirety, and I would like to submit it as such.
BY DR. DIX:
Q. Dr. Schacht, a little while ago you mentioned a warning on the part of Ambassador Dodd with regard to a danger which was threatening you. Was it an attack on your life?
A. At that time -- and I only heard about this after Mr. Dodd told me in January -- that from the SS an attack on my person had been planned. The intent was, as the technical expression was, to remove me.
Something like that must have been in the air; otherwise, a foreign ambassador and the circles close to me would not have known about this. ing, the equality of rights and how you rejected the use of arms. Did you try to do anything in a practical way when you were the president of the Notenbank? promise, first of all, that as far as my sister banks in foreign countries were concerned, to work as harmoniously as possible with them and to carry on a policy of mutual assistance and support. I had personal, friendly relations with them and tried to negotiate friendly relations with the hope of finding understanding for German problems and to contribute to the fact that these difficult problems which had arisen in central Europe might be solved by way of cooperation and mutual assistand working together. The word "cooperation", Zusammenarbeit, was used. It was the leit motiv in our circle.
Q And how were your foreign creditors concerned in this? disfavor with the money makers from the start, those people who had profited from German loans abroad, for I was against the policy of Germany owing money abroad, and I took my stand very firmly against this. actually did come to pass, after the financial crash in the year 1931, these self-same financiers and money men accused me that I was to blame that the interest on their money was not being transferred to them. In those circles I did not gain any friends, but in the circles of serious bankers and large banking institutes who were interested in a constant and regulated order of business with Germany, I believe in that circle I did not create any enemies, because I tried to take all steps and measures which I had to take in order to maintain German foreign trade. representatives. Approximately every six months we met, and I always gave them an itemized account of German conditions.
They were permitted to look into the books of the Reichsbank. They could interrogate the officials of the Reichsbank and take them to account, and they always told me that I told them everything in the most frank and open manner. So that I may be able to say that I lived and worked in the most friendly manner possible with these men. foreign trade, and so forth? it is even clearer now than it was prior to this date that Germany cannot live and could not live without foreign trade, and that the maintenance of export trade must be the basis of the future existence for the German nation.
Consequently, I did everything in order to maintain German foreign trade. I can quote a few specific examples in line and alongside general principles. I tried to do business with China in order that we might export to China and I was ready to give China credit and hailed the fact when the traffic union kept up an externsive flow of trade with us and I was always interested in expanding this foreign trade and to put it on a table basis, especially in Russia as well as China; about the ability to pay and the readiness to pay and the promptness of payment of the opposite parties and I never had any doubts on these points.
THE PRESIDENT: He is going into unnecessary detail in support of the allegation that he tried to maintain export trade. We don't surely need details.
DR. DIX: As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, this exposition is of tremendous significance and relevance. This fact shows Schacht contrary and in opposition to the policy carried out by Hitler. Hitler was hostile to the Soviet Union and this hostility is counterbalanced by friendliness in the person of the Minister of Economics Schacht, and if I can prove that Schacht was a pioneer fighter for a policy of understanding even in phases where Hitler carried on his animosity as far as the Soviet Union was concerned, in my opinion, it is very important for Schacht as far as the understanding on the one side and the understanding on the other; this is a very important point.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has made the allegation. It is for the prosecution to dispute it in cross examination and if they do, then the details might become material in re-examination.
DR. DIX: I believe the question has been answered and now I shall turn to an entirely new phase of questioning. Since it is typical to show his policy and his will for understanding and his direct opposition to the basic policy of Hitler, I would like to refer to my Exhibit No. 34, which is an affidavit of Banker and Swedish Counsel General at Munich, Schniewind. This is exhibit 34. The English translation, page 114, and I would like to quote a few sentences from that, starting with page 12 of the German text. This paragraph concerns what Dr. Schacht has testified---Schniewind, who was a high official in the Ministry of Economics, says here:
"In my sector the Reich guarantees for supplies to Russia were dealt with and therefrom I know that Schacht considered the fighting of Russia by Hitler was wrong. Through much effort, he saw to it that supplies were sent to Russia, expecially machines; frequently was under the impression that Mr. Schacht was in favor of the sending of supplies because they gave work to people but were not favorable to rearmament. Mr. Schacht in public pointed out with satisfaction that nothing was taking place as quickly and as nicely as the supply of goods to Russia." and before we take our recess, I ask that I be permitted to reply to your Lordship's remark of a few minutes ago. The defendant must, up to a certain degree, find it very hard to exonerate himself. The prosecution very simply argued that "You helped to finance rearmament and this rearmament in the final analysis ended in war and not only a war but a war of aggression; therefore, you as a defendant are either a conspirator or an accomplice and that is a war crime." the defendant, first of all, to call attention that rearmament as such did not show a will to aggressive war; and secondly, also, it could show also that he committed acts which would point to the exact opposite which showed his will for agreement and will to peace; and as far as these basic principle and reasons are concerned, I beg the Tribunal not to cut me short in this evidence but rather give me the time to carry it through; and therefore, also, my desire to set forth Schacht's policy to the Soviet Union, a policy in which he was in direct opposition to Hitler, and to bring it forth in its entirety. Therefore, my wish is to show in all spheres and in every respect and in every phase, he was for understanding; that is, a policy of give and take rather than follow a policy of unilateral terrorizing. which I have to follow through and that is a very sensitive field and I ask that I be helped rather than hindered. Then, when the witnesses are called, I will dispense with most likely every witness except one and will cut short the time which I am now taking up, and I beg that you show me some consideration.
