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.
Does your Lordship consider it time for a recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Dix. I thought that the Tribunal has shown you every consideration, and we will now certainly have a recess.
(A recess was taken.)
BY DR. DIX:
Q Dr. Schacht, what was your attitude toward the "Fuehrer Principle"? Didn't that mean the danger of giving a blank check; the danger of losing your own responsibility? You have heard that Sir David considers the "Fuehrer Principle", as such, criminal?
A Whether the "Fuehrer Principle" is criminal or not, -- opinions throughout history are divided. If we look back through Roman history we see that from time to time in dire periods of distress a leader was selected to whom everybody else was subordinate. And if you read "Failure of a Mission" by Henderson you find sentences there also in which he says:
"People in England sometimes forget and fail to realize that even dictators can be up to a point necessary for a period, and even extremely beneficial for a nation."
Another passage from the same book says:
"Dictatorships are not always evil. In other words, it is important to note just what is attributed to a fuehrer; how much confidence one has in a fuehrer; and for how long a time." Of course it is quite impractical that somebody should assume leadership in a country without giving the possibility to the nation from time to time to say whether the nation wants to keep him as fuehrer or not. The election of Hitler as fuehrer itself was not a political mistake; in my opinion one could find quite a number of Imitations in order to avoid that danger which you have mentioned. I have to say that one has not done so and that was a mistake. But perhaps one could depend on the fact that from time to time a referendum, a plebiscite, a new expression of the will of the people could take place by which the fuehrer could be corrected, because a leader who can not be corrected grows of course into a danger, and that danger I recognized very well; I was afraid of it; and I have attempted to remedy it. May I say one more thing?--party propaganda without limits was attempted to bring the fuehrership thought as a lasting principle into politics. That of course is nonsense, absolute nonsense, and I have tried to express my deviating opinions publicly whenever it was possible. I was looking for opportunities, and found one in a speech before the Academy of German Law where not only Nazis but lawyers of all groups were in attendance, and in that speech I lectured about the "Fuehrer Principle" in economy.
And I expressed myself ironically and specifically and said that it is not necessary to have a leader in every hosiery factory. That was no principle, but a rule of exception which has to be handled very carefully. speech. What did you think about the ideology of the "master race", "Herrenvolk"? spoke of a chosen people, or of God's own country , or of things like that. As a convinced adherent to the Christian faith I stand on the platform of the "love-thy-neighbor" policy, and I should like to extend that to all people without regard to race or faith. I would like to state also that that talk, that gossip about the master race, which wome Party leaders used to disseminate, was exposed to ridicule also by the German public. That was not surprising, because most of those leaders of the Hitler party were not exactly types of the Nordic Race. And in that connection, little Goebbels, among the population when things like that were discussed, was known under the title "Der Schrumpf Germane" (the shrunken German). thing which most of the leaders of the Party had in common with the old Germans--they only attempted one thing--and that was drinking; excessive drinking was the main factor of the Nazi ideology. ogy?
AAn ideology (weltanschaung) in my opinion is a summation of all those model principles which enable me to require a certain clear judgment about all aspects of life. Therefore it is a matter of course that an ideology can not be founded within the visible word, one has to go beyond that; it is something metaphysical, that is to say, it is based on faith, on religion, and an ideology which is not based or rooted on religion in my opinion is no ideology.
Consequently I rejected the National Socialist ideology, which is not rooted in religion. are no charges against you with regard to the Jewish question. Just the same I have to put to you also, concerning this complex situation, a few questions, because the very same trial brief on the other hand takes from you what on one side is considered conceded to you, that is to say, on the one hand in that trial brief it accuses you repeatedly of Nazi ideology but not anti-semitism, but Nazi ideology would include anti-semitism-
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I Simply can't be bound by silence after this flagrant misstatement of our position made in conjunction with this witness' testimony. It is not true that we make no charges against Dr. Schacht with reference to the Jews. What is true is that we say that he was not in complete sympathy with that aspect of the Nazi Party program which involved the wholesale Extermination of the Jews, and he was for that reason attacked from time to time. It is further conceded that he gave aid and comfort to individual Jews, but we do charge that he believed the Jews of Germany should be stripped of their rights as citizens, and that he aided and participated in their persecution. And I don't like to have our position misstated and then be met with a claim of estoppel by silence.
DR. DIX: I have to thank Justice Jackson for the statement, and it is now all the more necessary that I put this question to Dr. Schacht, but at this moment -
THE PRESIDENT: Please put it then.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, it is not only a question, but it is a problem, and I should like to ask the prosecution to clarify that point, because it still needs clarification after the words of Justice Jackson. But if the Tribunal does not think that this is the opportune time I can bring it up later. I believe, however, that it would be right to bring it up now. prosecution, and I want it clarified, and I think I can do it briefly. It is the question as to whether Dr. Schacht is accused of crimes against humanity; that is, not only the crime of conspiracy concerning aggressive wars, but also the typical crimes against humanity.
And their individual passages as well as what is contained in the Indictment -- I only want to take the liberty to point out the passages and to ask the prosecution to be kind enough to state whether also Count III and IV of the Indictment are to be included. In the trial brief the prosecution said "And that accounts for the fact that the prosecution will limit itself to Counts I and II. They state:
"Our evidence against the defendant Schacht is limited to the planning and preparation of aggressive war and his participation in the conspiracy for aggressive war," The same statements are on page 3 of the Trial brief.
Also, in Annex A of the accusations against Schacht it is limited to Counts 1 and 2. However, on page 1 of the Indictment we find the following:
"We accuse the above-mentioned of crimes against the peace, crimes against the laws of warfare, crimes against humanity in the following sense, and of a common conspiracy to commit these crimes." And then all the defendants are listed, including the defendant Hjalmar Schacht.
On page 17 of the German text of the Indictment we read:
"On the basis of the facts previously stated, all the defendants are guilty."
It also states, on page 18 of the Indictment:
"All defendants committed, from that date on, acts of violence in occupied territories and in the territories of Austria and Czechoslovakia, and on the high seas."
On page 46 it reads:
"During several years before the 8th of May, 1945, all defendants committed crimes against humanity in Germany", and so forth. a limitation of the accusation against Schacht to Counts 1 and 2, but the other passages express beyond doubt that he is also accused of crimes against humanity.
I think it would be helpful -- and if doesn't have to be done right now, but I wanted to be sure and express it now -- if, at a later date, the prosecution would state to what extent the accusations are now made against Schacht.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, it will take only one moment to answer that, and I think the examination should not proceed under any misapprehension.
Schacht has been accused of being guilty of Count 1. plan or conspiracy embraced the commission of crimes against peace in that the defendants planned, prepared, initiated and waged wars of aggression. In the development and course of the common plan it came to embrace the commission of war crimes in that it contemplated, and the defendants determined upon and carried out ruthless wars. And that included also crimes against humanity. in the field perpetrating these individual atrocities, he is answerable for every offense committed by any of the defendants or their co-conspirators up to the time that he openly broke with this outfit with which be became associated.
That is our contention, and Dr. Dix should conduct his examination on the assumption that every charge is a charge against Schacht up to the time that he openly, and on record so that somebody knew it, became separated from the company with which he chose to travel.
DR. DIX: It is probably my fault, but I still cannot see clearly. First, I do not know what period or what date the prosecution means when they say that he broke with the regime.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must make up your own mind as to what time it was, the time at which he openly broke.
Aren't you able to hear?
DR. DIX: I have to make up my mind?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think you had better go on with the evidence
DR. DIX: Well, I can refer to that later again. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Well then, please do not make any principal statements concerning the Jewish question, but tell the Tribunal, and give a few examples, as to what your attitude was on the Jewish question.
A. The Jewish question appeared early, in 1933, when the deceased New York banker, James Meier, announced his visit to me. I went to Hitler at that time and told him: "Mr. James Meier, one of the best reputed New York bankers and a great philanthropist for his old home country, Germany, will come to visit me, and I intend to give a dinner in his honor.
I assume that you have no objection." He immediately said, in a very definite manner; "Mr. Schacht, you can do everything." and I assumed that he gave me absolute freedom to keep in contact with my Jewish friends, which I had done. The dinner actually took place, and so on. mentioned. At every occasion I took a position on the Jewish question, and wherever possible, publicly, I have always looked for that opportunity. office. The manager of that branch office was mentioned by name one day in the Stuermer, and the Stuermer exhibited, in one of the "Stuermer boxes" in his village, the statement that he was a traitor because his wife had bought 50 pfennigs worth of ribbon in a Jewish store. the immediate removal of that exhibition and an immediate correction, that that man was no traitor to the people. That was refused. Then, without asking anyone, I closed the Reichsbank branch office at Amtswalde. It took a number of weeks until, in the end, the Oberpresident, who was also a national official, came to me and asked me to reopen the branch office. I told him, "As soon as you deny that affair publicly I shallreopen the branch office at Amtswalde." It took only a few days, and then the Oberpresident and Gauleiter of Brandenburg, Gruber, made that public announcement in the Amtswalde newspaper, in large print, and I reopened the branch office in Amtswalde. That is one example.
The second example has been mentioned briefly; I just want to sum it up once more because it was very important. Christmas celebration for the office help of the Reichsbank, I referred to these things and I told the boys, in the presence of many parents and party leaders who were there present, that I hoped they had nothing to do with these things, which would make every decent German ashamed, and that they had not been present.
But if so, they should leave the Reichsbank at once, because in an institution such as the Reichsbank, which was built up on good faith, one could not use any people who did not respect the property and life of others.
DR. DIX: May I interrupt you, Dr. Schacht, and point out to the Tribunal that in the document Exhibit No. 34, which is an affidavit of Mr. Schniewind, on page 118 of the German text and at page 126 of the English text the same incident which Dr. Schacht has just mentioned is quoted shortly. It states there, and 1 quote:
"It is known that he, Schacht, at the Christmas celebration of the Reichsbank in December of 1938, said the following in his address to the young office boys: 'Several weeks ago things have occurred in our Fatherland which are a disgrace to culture and which turn every decent German's face red with shame. I only hope that none of you office boys participated in it, as for such an individual there is no place in the Reichsbank.'" BY D.R DIX:
Q. Excuse me. Please continue. You wanted to say some more.
A. When in August of 1934 I took over the Reichwirtschafts Ministry, of course I first put the question to Hitler: "How shall the Jews be treated, in our national economy?" Hitler told me then, literally, "In the economy the Jews can keep doing the same thing they have been doing up to now." time when I was in charge of the Ministry of Economy I acted accordingly.
dispute, some conflict with a gauleiter or other Party official concerning some Jewish question. Also, I could not protect Jews against physical mistreatment because that came under the competence of the States Attorney and not mine, but in the economic field, I helped all Jews who approached me and in every individual case, and in some cases I had to threaten my resignation. I intervened with Hitler against gauleiters and Party officials. could only take place after I had resigned from my office. Had I still been in office, then that pogrom doubtlessly would not have occured. of developments from 1933 on, basic changes took place in the judgment of Adolf Hitler. I ask you now, because this is a very important question, to give the Tribunal a thorough description about the attitude and the judgment of Adolf Hitler in the course of the years--as exhaustively as possible but also as briefly as possible. of Hitler as a semi-educated man. I still stand by that. He did not have thorough school education, but he read very much later. He acquired a large knowledge, and he juggled with that knowledge in an extraordinary manner in all debates and discussions and speeches.
No doubt he was a man of genius in certain respects. He had intuition. He had ideas which nobody else would have had and which were sometimes useful to get out of great difficulties with astounding simplicity.
He was a mass psychologist of really diabolical genius. While I myself and several others--for instance. General von Witzleben--While we were never captivated in personal conversations, still he had a very peculiar influence on other people, and particularly--in spite of his illsounding, screeching voice--he was able to whip large masses in tremendous auditoriums to frenzy.
I believe that originally he was not only filled with evil tendencies; but doubtless believed to want the good, but gradually he fell victim to the same charm which he exerted on the masses, because whoever starts to seduce the masses becomes finally seduced by them, and so that relation between the leader and the led, in my opinion, contributed to bringing him onto the wrong way of mass instancts, from which every political leader should make sure to keep away.
One more thing was admirable in Hitler. He was a man of unbending energy, of a willpower which overran all obstacles, and only these two qualities--mass psychology and energy and willpower--to these two factors, Hitler in my opinion owed the fact that up to 1940 and then later, almost fifty per cent of the German people were finally following him.
What else do you want me to say? of opinion. You have said that the break between you and Hitler was based upon the Fritsch incident. You are the best witness to give us an explanation about your own development, your own change of mind.
A Excuse me. I think there is a basic error here. That is as if I had been a convinced adherent of Hitler at some tire. I have never been that. On the contrary, I only, inspired by a concern for my people and my country after Hitler came to power, put myself at his disposition in order to be able to bring that vital power into a regulated channel. Therefore, I could not permit a break with Hitler at that time. A break could only have occurred if I had been closely connected with him before. As far as my own mind was concerned, I was never closely connected with Hitler, but was in the cabinet because he was in power, and I considered it my duty to utilize my capacity in the service of good for my people. embark upon that activity which Gisevius has described to us? the time of the so-called Roehm Putsch on 30 June 1934. At that time-and I should like to point out first that things occurred quite unexpectedly-at that time I had told Hitler, "How could you have these people just simply killed off? Under all circumstances, there should have been at least some sort of special court." Hitler, if I may say so, just took these state ments and mumbled something about "revolutionary necessity", but he did not contradict me.