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.
half of the year 1935, I noticed that my opinion that Hitler did not approve of what I thought could be considered revolutionary excesses and that he was really willing to bring these forces into a regulated atmosphere, was wrong. Hitler did nothing to stop the excesses of individual Party members or Party groups. At all times, probably he had the idea which recently--or I believe today--was mentioned by a witness that the SA have free play for once. That is to say, to the masses of the Party, he gave some things, so to speak, as a means of recreation, things which in a regular state are absolutely incompatible, and that suspicion on my part grew in the course of the months, and then, for the first time, in May 1935, I saw cause to bring these matters up with him. I don't know if you want me to discuss these things now, but I am ready to tell you about them. you how you changed your mind about Hitler from your original point of view all the way to becoming a conspirator against Hitler. incident. The very moment when I had to recognize--and, of course, that did not come with lightening speed but in the course of weeks and months it crystallized--the moment when I had to recognize that Hitler intended a war or at least was not ready to do everything to avoid a war, that moment I told myself that that was a tremendous danger which was raising its head and that only violence could crush violence. was excluded. There was no freedom of assembly. There was no freedom of speech. There was no freedom of writing. There was no possibility to discuss things in even a small group. From A to Z one was suspected, and every word which you said in a group which consisted of more than two persons was dangerous. There was evidently only one possibility against that terror which excluded every democratic criticism, and that was to meet this situation with violence.
And that is how I found out that in the face of Hitler's terror only an attempt like a putsch, a coup d'etat, a final attempt at assassination was possible.
Q. And is it right to say that the decisive factor to change your mind occurred during the so-called Fritsche crisis? actions and affairs of the Party members -- the Fritsche crisis gave the absolute assurance that here a basic and principal change was occurring in the political leadership, by the fact that within about ten days Blomberg was removed, Fritsche was removed, Neurath was removed and that Hitler not only called a man who was so incapable in foreign politics as Ribbentrop but also that he in his speech soon thereafter in the Reichstagannounced that from then on rearmament had to be increased. Consequently the Fritsche crisis was the decisive factor to change my opinion and to confirm my assurance that every attempt at a peaceful development would have to fail and only violent means have to be used.
DR. DIX: On account of the importance of the Fritsche crisis may I again quote from the documents? The document which I already wanted to produce on the occasion of the interrogation of Gisevius and which I could not do because the document was not available. The same statement about the Fritsche crisis which Gisevius and Dr. Schacht has now made was also made by a smart officer with good political knowledge abroad. May I point to Exhibit No. 15 of my document book? That is page 41 of the English text, and 35 of the German text. It is a bienniel report of the Chief of Staff of the United States Army to the Secretary of War over the period 1 July 1943 to 30 June 1945. I quote one sentence from it:
"The history of the German High Command from 1938 on is one of constant conflict of personalities in which military judgment wasincreasingly subordinated to Hitler's personal dictates. The first clash occurred in 1938 and resulted in the removal of von Blomberg, von Fritsche and Beck and of the last effective conservative influence on German policy."
So here also that change has been clearly understood. In conclusion I would like to ask a question of Dr. Schacht.
Q. Were you only disappointed by Hitler or did you consider yourself deceived by Hitler at that time? Will you answer that?
A The answer is that I never felt disappointed by Hitler, because I had not expected more of him; from a knowledge of his personality it was what I could have expected.
But I certainly considered myself deceived, because whatever he had previously promised to the German people and thereby to himself, he has not kept afterwards. capabilities his adherents got privileges before all other citizens. He promise to put the Jews under the same protection which foreigners had. He deprived them of every legal protection. He had promised to fight against political lies and together with his minister, Goeb bels, and by himself, he has never done anything else but disseminate political lies and political fraud. He promised to the German people to maintain the principles of positive Christianity and he tolerated and sponsored measures by which institutions of the Church were damaged and insulted. Also, in the foreign political field he has always spoken against a war on two fronts -- and then undertook it himself. He has broken all laws of the Wiemar Republic, for the enforcement of which he had taken the oath. He mobilized the Gestapo against personal liberties and freedoms. He made impossible all free communication of thought and ideas. He released criminals and put them in his service. He has done everything in the way of not keeping his promises. He deceived the world, Germany and me. power. In November 1932, you stated publicly that Hitler would become Chancellor, Reich Chancellor. What made you make that statement? elections of 1932 got 40 per cent of all seats in the Reichstag for his party. That is a result of an election, if I an informed correctly, which had not occurred since 1871, since the Reichstag was founded; and for me, for myself as a democrat and a follower of the democratic parliamentary government, it was inevitable that that man now was to be put in charge of forming a Cabinet. I could not have seen any other possibility. There was only one alternative and that was a military government. But the Cabinet of von Papen already had had some special authority and still could not stand against the parliament, the Reichstag; and when Schleicher attempted to establish a military regime without the participation of the Nazis he failed after just a few weeks, because he had seen himself put before the alternative either to start a civil war or to resign.
have thought differently about it -- but Schleicher was also of the opinion that the Armed Forces could not stand a civil war, and Hindenburg was certainly not ready to risk a civil war or to tolerate a civil war. But he saw himself forced by necessity to put the reins of Government into the hands of the man who, thanks to his propaganda and the incapability of all preceding governments, and also thanks to the policies of the foreign countries toward Germany, had won the majority of German votes. and the Nazi regime to come into power. I want to ask you now whether between the July elections, 1932, and the day when Hitler became chancellor -- that is the 30th of January, 1933 -- you had spoken publicly for Hitler.
A I want to state at first that Hitler's power in July, 1932, Hitler's climax of power, had been reached by gaining 232 seats in July. Everything else that followed is only a consequence of that Reichstag election during that entire period -- with the exception of the one interview you mentioned, I have not said any more than that Hitler would become Reich Chancellor, and according to democratic rules. I repeat that during that entire period I have not written or spoken a single word publicly for Hitler. Cabinet, did you speak to Hindenburg about the Chancellorship? competent gentlemen, be it Hindenburg, Meissner or anyone else, to exert any influence in favor of Hitler, and I had nothing to do and did not participate in any way in the nomination of Hitler to Reich Chancellor. prestige of your name -- in November 1932 -- at the disposal of Hitler, and he refers to a statement made by Goebbels in the latter's bock, "From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery." What can you say about that?
be mobilized against me here, but it is not my fault if Mr. Goebbels made a mistake. Reichstag elections of the 5th of March, and there is an affidavit by von Schnitzler, EC-439, US Exhibit No. 618. What do you have to say about that? It is our Exhibit No. 3 of our document book, page 11 of the English copy. Chancellor and the elections of the 5th of March were to be a new basis for the forming of the government, Hitler asked me whether at the occasion of a meeting which Goering was to call, and which would have the purpose to raise funds for the elections, whether I would not take the role of the banker for them. I had no cause to refuse that. The meeting took place on the 26th of February. I had pleaded for an election fund. The Prosecution, however, has presented a document, D-203, which apparently is a record of the election speech made by Hitler on that evening. that it is our Exhibit No.2, on page 9 of the English text. Excuse me. Please will you Kindly go on.
A D-203. That document closes with the following sentence:
"Goering then led over very cleverly to the necessity that other circles not taking part in this political battle should at least make the financial sacrifice so necessary at this time." it can be seen very clearly that not I have pleaded for funds, but that Goering had pleaded for funds. I have only administrated these funds later. Prosecution has carefully left out those decisive passages by which I would not be accused. I quote the two sentences, therefore, as follows: I'm sorry I have to quote in English because I have only the English text in front of me.
"Dr. Schacht opposed to the meeting the raising of an election fund of, as far as I remember, three million Reichsmarks. The fund should be distributed between the two 'Allies' according to their relative strength at the time being. Dr. Stein suggested that the Deutsch Volkspartei should be included which suggestion, when I rightly remember, was accepted. The amounts which the individual firms had to contribute were not discussed. " Party only, but for the Nazi Party and the Allied nationalistic group, in which, for instance, were also von Papen and Hugenberg, and during that very meeting it was extended to a third group, the German Volkspartei. That was, therefore, a collective fund for thoseparties who went into the election campaign and not just a Nazi fund. seizure of power, had been issued and which established the totalitarian rule of the Nazis. We have to consider the question of your personal responsibility as a later member of the cabinet and, therefore, I have to discuss these laws with you in detail; but I should like to recall to you, first, the Enabling Act; then the law about the prohibition of parties and the establishment of one party; the law about the unity of party and state; the expropriation of the SPD and the trade unions; the law about the legal limitation of professions for Jews; about the peoples' court; the law about the legalization of the murders of 30th June 1934; and about the murder of the offices of the Reich Chancellor and the Reich President in the person of Hitler. How is it your personal responsibility in your capacity as member of the cabinet with respect to those laws?
A When all these laws were issued I was not even a Cabinet member. I had no voice in the Cabinet. I had a voice in the Cabinet only after the first of August 1934, at which time the last disastrous law or merger of the offices of Chancellor and President was issued. And I didn't have anything to do even with that law.
Q I don't know whether I mentioned it, but I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. It doe not cover the merger of the offices.
A Of course not, because I was not even in the Cabinet. I had received my nomination as the minister on the 3rd or 4th of August. I did not take part in the deliberation of that law. I did not vote for it, and I nave not signed it. Then as a member of the Reichstag you would have voted for these laws, because after 1933 there Were only unanimous votes in the Reichstag.
A Yes. Unfortunately, there is much in the trial brief which is not correct. During my entire life I was never a member of the Reichstag, and one look into the Reichstag Handbook could have enlightened the Prosecution about the fact that also during that time I was not a member of the Reichstag. the Reichstag, because I had been neither during that time.
Q Did Adlof Hitler ever take an oath on the Weimer Constitution? Reichs Chancellor, to Reichspresident Hindenburg. During that oath he swore that he would not only respect the constitution but also all laws unless they were changed legally, that he would observe them and protect them.
A No, it has never been repealed?
Q Was the Fuehrer principle put down anywhere legally? which was made later to reduce the responsibility of the individual ministers-and that hits me, also--by saying that it has become a common law, that is not correct. The responsibility of the ministers continued to exist, my own also, and only the terror and the violent threats of Hitler kept them down. Cabinet, whether the Cabinet after 1933 was a National Socialistic or a combination of the parties of the Reich, or the question of the development of Hitler to an autocratic dictator, all these questions I have put to the witness Lammers.
I do not wish to repeat them, but do you have to add anything to what Lammers had testified about?
A I made only two notes. In the Reichstag speech of Hitler on the 23rd of March 1933, he mentioned "It is the sincere desire of the National Government." end of quotation. So we See it is not the National Socialist Government, as it was always said later, but the National Government.
And another one. In the proclomation to the armed forces which the War Minister von Blomberg issued in February 1933, the sentence is included: "I assume the office with the firm will lead the Reichswehr according to the testament of my predecessors as a means of power superior to the party and directly connected with the State." coalition cabinet, whereas Hitler, by his methods of terror and violence, forced a pure Nazi dictatorship out of it. 4, page 14 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
DR. DIX: Mr. President, my I ask a question? Do we continue tomorrow, because tomorrow is the first of May, and there is some amount of uncertainty whether there is a session tomorrow or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Tribunal will go on tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1 May 1946, 1000 hours.)
Hermann Wilhelm Goering et al., Defendants Lord Justic Lawrence presiding.
0900-1300
THE PRESIDENT: Before we go on with the case of the Defendant Schacht, on behalf of the High Tribunal on the applications by Dr.Sauter on behalf of the Defendant, Von Schierer, the first application to which any objection was taken related to the group of Documents, Nos. 30-31-4568-73-101-124- and 133. That application with respect to that group of documents is denied.
The next matter was an application with respect to No. 118-A. That application is granted and the document is to be translated.
The next was No. 121 and in that case the application is denied. As regard to witnesses, Dr. Sauter withdrew his application for the witness, Marsalek. application that Ueberreiter be called as a witness.
Dr. DIX: (Counsel for Schacht) Yesterday, much to my sorrow, I did not, after an answer given by Dr. Schacht to my question, as to whether he was disappointed by Hitler or whether he considered himself deceived by him, after his answer, I did not have a chance to read from a Document which deals with the same principle. I am referring to a passage, which has been submitted to the High Tribunal and which has been quoted several times - Exhibit 34,. Page 114 of the English Text, This passage may be found on page 124 of the English Document books and its passage is as follows:
"Dr. Schacht, even in the years 1935-36 actually, as may have been seen from numerous statements, knew he had fallen into the role of a man, whom in good faith had put his strength and ability at Hitler's disposal, but, who now found himself betrayed.
"Of the many statements made by Dr. Schacht, I quote only one which Dr. Schacht made at the occasion of a supper with my wife and myself in the summer of 1938. When Dr. Schacht made his appearance, it could be clearly seen that something was seething within him and during the supper, it suddenly bursted out of him when in deep agitation he almost shouted at my wife, 'My dear lady, we have fallen into the hands of criminals how could I ever have suspected that?'" Yesterday I mentioned three Documents:
(1) A speech made by Schacht for a Geographical Society at Frankfurt on a night in December and then a theme Schacht had written on the Colonial Problem and a speech given at Koenigsberg by Schacht.
I wish to submit these Documents: The speech to the Geographical Society at Frankfurt is the Document Exhibit 19, Page 38, Eng Page 54. The theme on the Colonial Question, is Exhibit 21, German version page 53 and English version page 59.
The speech at Koenigsberg is Exhibit 25 of my Document Book, German Version Page 66 and English Version Page 73. BY DR. DIX. Ministry of Economics and when you became Minister of Economics, you were familiar with the happenings of the 30th of June, 1934 and the legalization through the Cabinet. Did you have no doubts or qualms to enter the Cabinet and what reason prompted you to put aside these doubts and objections? would have been concerned, these would have been the only considerations. It would have been very simple not to assume office and to resign. Of course, I asked myself what I would gain for the future development of German politics, if I did refuse office. At this point we were already at a stage in which our public and private opposition against the Hitler regime had been made impossible. Meetings could not be held, societies could not be established, any expressions in the press had been put under censorship and any possibility at all of a political opposition, without which no Government can live, had been prevented by Hitler through his policy of terror.