There was only one position, or one way, from which one could try to be critical and perhaps to form an opposition, and serious measures by the resume could be prevented. That way only - the only way to do it was to be in the Government itself. With that deliberate knowledge, I entered the Government and I hoped in the course of the years I could find a certain amount of support and backing among the German people, there were still a large mass ofspiritual leading professors, scientists, and teachers of whom I could not expect they would simply acquiesce in the regime of coercion. There was also a large mass of industrialists, leaders of enterprise, leaders of economy, all of whom I could not assume that they would turn their business over to that coercion, which was inimicable to the economy. I expected a promise of support from all of the circles - support which would make it possible for me to have the moderating influence in the Government, therefore, I entered the Cabinet of Hitler - not with enthusiastic agreement, but because of the necessity that one would have have to keep on working for the German people and apply the break to stop wrong measures and that could be done only by being part of the Government. within the party? the party, of course, the decent element were in large numbers, but the largest part of the population had joined the party because of their own free will, because of good instinct, because of the tremendous need in which the German people found themselves.
I would like to say about the S.S for instance. In the beginning, there were numbers of decent people who advocated the S.S. for Himmler gave the SS the aspect of fighting for an ideal of life. time which had the significant title. It was written by an SS man, "Schafft Anstaendige Kerle", meaning produce decent men.
But,in the course of time, Hitler knew full well to work within the party and its organizations to bring all cooler elements around him and to chain all of those elements to him and I might say that he was deliberate in this.
As far as misdeeds or thoughts were concerned, he used these thoughts for his own gain in order to shackle these people to him.
Yesterday I talked about some of the phases of Nazi ideology. I did not want to do that with the idea of a derogatory intent. I did it for a certain reason. In the course of developments, I mentioned that many Party members who were within the inner circle of Hitler and who occupied more or less leading positions gradually became afraid because of the consequences of the injustices and the evil deeds to which they were instigated by the regime. I had the decided feeling that these people used all sorts of sedatives in order to protect themselves against their own consciences, and that it was only the flight from their own consciences that made them act the way they did. Otherwise, we could not explain the large number of suicides that took place at the end of the regime. conspiracy and in this violation of the peace. Did you at any time have secret discussions or secret orders or secret directives which might be interpreted as going toward an objective like that? given me which might have contained something wrong. Never did Hitler ever suggest anything to me which he knew that I would not carry out, something that might not agree with my moral point of view and which I would, therefore, not carry through. At no time did I ever make a remark or expression that one of my fellow ministers or one of the leading men in the inner circle of Hitler -Of course, I could not control that circle -- but speaking about my fellow ministers and the others whom I met in official contacts, they never showed in any way that there was an intent to commit a war crime. On the contrary, we were always very glad when Hitler swung one of his large speeches in which he told, not only the entire world, but the German people and assured them that he did not want anything except peace and peaceful work. That Hitler deceived the German people, his workers, his colleagues and the entire world, is one of the things that I mentioned yesterday. take an oath or an obligation to the Party or other National Socialist organization?
A Not a single oath and not a single obligation beyond my oath to the head of the state as an official.
Q Did you know the leading National Socialists personally and socially? That is, Hitler, Goering? Did you know them intimately well?
A I never had relations of that sort with Hitler. He repeatedly urged me in the first years to come to the luncheons at the Reichschancellory where he was lunching with his closer friends. I tried to do that twice. I attended twice at various intervals, and I must say that the niveau of the discussion at the luncheon and the abject humility which was given Hitler was not to my liking, and I didnot like the conditions and the surroundings as a whole, and I never went back again, I never called on Hitler personally in a private matter.
Of course, naturally, I had to attend the large public functions which all other high officials attended also, but we certainly we cannot speak of a close, intimate relationship between ourselves, and that applies to the other gentlemen as well. visited each other on occasion, but social gatherings which took place in the first period had a more or less official character. As far as personal, private gatherings were concerned, we can not really speak about that. well? men: Let us start with Bormann.
A I rather gather that you are going to give me a list. Therefore, I would like to make a few introductory remarks. glory from Paris. All of us -- the ministers and the reichsleiters and the dignitaries of the Party, state secretaries, and so forth -- received an invitation to be present at the station to greet Hitler on his arrival. At that time I was in Berlin. Therefore, it was impossible for me not to acquiesce in this suggestion. That was in the year 1940.
The conflict between Hitler and myself had been going on for some time, and it would have been an affront if I had stayed away. Consequently, I went to the Bahnhof, saw a large number of Party dignitaries, ministers and so forth, but, of course, I do not remember just who all these people were.
Q I beg your pardon; I would like to interrupt you. I have a rather poor memory for films and weekly newsreels, but I believe that that reception was shown in a weekly film and I believe that you were just about the only civilian who was present among those people. it. They mentioned that among all the gold braid, I was the only civilian in civilian clothes and that I stood out as such. Of course, one could see from that film who was present at the time. Morning to many people and inquired about their health and so forth, and I also recall that I arrived at the station with Rosenberg in the same car, because there were always two people occupying a car. I did not attend the reception which followed at the Reichschancellery. Rosenberg did go, however. I said, "No, I would rather not go. I am going home." Sauckel, Speer, Seyss-Inquart, Kaltenbrunner--that you probably saw them for the last time then? with any one of them except Hitler himself.
Q Did you speak with Hitler at that time? of my life. We were standing in rows, and Hitler passed by rather quickly. When he saw me, he came up to me with a triumphant smile and extended his hand in a most cordial manner, something which I had not seen from him in a long time, and he said to me, "Now, Mr. Schacht, what do you have to say now?" admiration or a similar sentiment, and he expected me to admit that my prognos about the war and about the disaster of the war was wrong, for he know my attitude about the war.
It was extremely hard for me to evade an answer like that, and I really searched my mind in order not to make that expression that he expected and said only, "I can only say to you, 'God Protect you." That was the only significant conversation which I had that day. through a neutral and non-critical remark such as I gave him. you just when I saw these gentlemen last.
Q Hess? here in the prison. Since years before the beginning of the war.
Q Ley?
Q Ribbentrop?
A I saw him last after my being thrown out of the Reichsbank. I talked with him about the journey to India, and that must have been, I would judge, February 1939. I have not talked with him since then.
Q Now Rosemberg?
A Perhaps, of course, not mentioning this reception of Hitler's that I have talked about, I would say '36.
Q And now about Frick?
A I perhaps saw him last in the year '38.
Q Schirach?
Q Speer? I attended the world exposition in Paris in the year 1937.
Q You mean before you being taken prisoner?
Q Sauckel?
Q Seyss Inquart? Austria, when I visited a colleague in the Reichsbank.
Q Kaltenbrunner?
Q How about Frank?
A Perhaps in the year 193? or '38, I saw him here. that I saw him after '38. tance?
A I never had any contact, with Keitel. I perhaps saw him at a social gathering, but never after '38.
Q How about Jodl?
A I made Jodl's acquaintance here in the prison.
Q How about Doenitz?
A I met Mr. Doenitz here in the prison.
Q Raeder?
A I believe I have known him for quite some time. In the beginning we exchanged visits among our families, partially of an official character and partially friendly, but I believe that I have not seen him or talked to him since '38.
Q How about Brauchitsch?
A I have not talked with him since '39'--no, '38, since the Fritsch affair.
Q How about Halder?
A Halder, as you know, I saw in connection with the Fall Putsch of '38 but not after that. Reichsbank? 1939, I saw him only once, when I wanted to discuss my future activity with him. I had to take this matter up with him. And on that occasion he asked me might svail myself of this opportunity to take this journey now, so there would not be so much talk about my leaving the Reichsbank. saw Goering for the last time. And then, after my return in August, I did not see him again. Then the war came. And now, during the war, I saw him twice.
Shall I tell you about those two occasions?
Q I didn't understand you.
A Shall I tell you about those last two times?
A I saw him once in February 1940. At that time various American magazincs and periodicals had suggested to me to give the German opinion on the situation and to put this down in writting. I was rather ready to follow these suggestions, but because we were at war, could not follow this suggestions without advising the Foreign Minister of this. The Foreign Minister advised me that he had nothing against my writing an article for an American paper, but that before sending off this article, he wanted to have the article aubmitted for censorship.
Of course I was not interested in that. I did not think of that possibility and, consequently, did not write this article.
There were further inquiries from America and I said to myself, "It isn't su ficient for me to talk with the Foreign Minister, I must go to Hitler in this matter." So, with that aim, I called on Hitler, who received me very soon, and I told him at that time, among other things, just what my experience with von Ribbentrop had been in this connection, and I further told him that I thought it might be expedient to write these articles; but that it seemed vital to me that one should have some one constantly in America who could clarify German interests in the press abroad, in America that is.
told me that he would discuss this matter with the Foreign Minister. Consequently, this entire thing came to naught. Funk, who most likely had a discussion with Ribbentrop on this matter, I was put in connection with him. I tried to get an answer through Funk, at any rate, but this answer was to the effect that it was too early for a step of that sort. And that was my visit in 1940.
Q Pardon my interruption. So that we can avoid all misunderstandings, if Hitler had given you permission that you could have come to America, just what would your activities have been?
A First of all, I was not interested in going myself; I rather made a general suggestion. But, naturally, I would have been very happy to go to America for I saw a possibility-
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not think it is material to know what he would have done if something happened that did not happen.
DR. DIX: I just wanted to preclude any misunderstand, and I can assume that this misunderstanding will not arise. BY DR. DIX: more in a rather private matter. In the previous year I had lost my wife through death and now intended to remarry. As minister without portfolio, which I remained to be, I had to tell the Reichschancellor and the head of the state of my intention. I called on him for that reason; but there was no political discussion at all at this meeting. When I left, he asked me, "At one time you had the intention that some one should go to America, but the time seems to be a little late for that now."
I replied immediately, "Of course, it is too late for that now." And that was the only remark of a political nature which took place. The other conversation was concerned purely with my marriage, and since then I have not seen Hitler.
Q And now your relationship with Goering? been stressed by the Prosecution, the propaganda value of your participation at Party rallies, and I would like to remind you of that which Justice Jackson has already mentioned in his opening speech, and I am quoting from the English:
"Does anyone believe that Hjalmar Schacht, sitting in the first row of the Party rally, beginning with 1935, wearing the Party ring, the Party emblem was included in this Nazi propaganda film only for the purpose of asthetic results, in which this large banker would give only his name to this rather threadbare affair, but it really gave the prestige to any German who was hesitating?"
Will you please give me your statement?
A First of all, I'd like to make a few minor corrections. In the year 1935, I did not have a Party emblem. Then Germans, who were hesitating, were of no importance any longer in the year 1935, for the regime of Hitler had been established completely and firmly by 1935. There were only those people who would turn away from Hitler but none who were still coming to him. And then, I must really consider it as a compliment that I an called a figure of importance, and so forth. But I believe that the reasons for my being and working in the Hitler cabinet have been set forth by me in great detail and in great sufficiency, so that I need not state them once more. self from the Party rallies. It is understandable for me with the point of all ostentation and of the representative system of Hitler's, to the outside at least, and not only did ministers participate in the Party rallies but many other representatives.
May I just say one more sentence in this connection?
The later Party Rallies were not attended by me. Let us refer to the Party Rally which is mentioned by the Chief Prosecutor, the one in 1935. I did not even attend that, for that was the Party Rally--and I recall this especially--at which the Nurnberg Laws against the Jews were proclaimed. At that time I wasn't in Nurnberg.
I attended the Party Rally in 1933 and 1934. I am not certain about the year 1936 or 1937, whether I attended or not, but I rather believe that I attended in 1936. The ones after that I was absent, and the last visit that I made at the Party Rally I attended only on the day of the Wehrmacht. prominent foreigners. Was the Diplomatic Corps represented? the American Ambassador, in the course of time all other leading diplomats attended the Party Rally, and I must say, in largo numbers, with must ostentation and in the first rows. to functions of State and this was a purely Party matter? How can you explain their participating?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If it please the Tribunal, I am in a position to objection, because I am not embarrassed by it if there is any embarrassment, but for this witness to explain the conduct of the ambassadors of other ambassadors were doing. Why they attended a Party Rally which he was lending his name to doesn't seem to me has any probative value. The fact that they attended I don't object to, but it seems to me for him to probe, unless he has some fact--and I want to make clear I don't object to any facts this witness knows, and I haven't objected to most of his opinions which we have been getting at great length. But I think for him to characterize the action: of foreign representatives is going beyond the pale of relevant and material evidence.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Attorney, may I make just one remark in reply?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better pass on, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Yes, of course. However, I would ask tobe given the permissi on to answer Justice Jackson briefly, not because I want to be stubborn, but I believe that if I answer now I can avoid later discussions and can save time thereby.
I did not ask the witness for his opinion. Of course Justice Jackson is correct that he is not here to give opinions about the reasons of the Diplomatic Corps; But I asked him about a fact: How this participation on the part of the Diplomatic Corps, which was significant, was explained. I consider this participation relevant, as will be seen by my questioning in the course of time, and that is why I am saying it now. carried through, it is of tremendous importance to know from whom they were supported morally, spiritually or in any other manner, and who did not support them. In this connection the outward demeanor of the official representatives of foreign countries is of tremendous importance, and the manner in which this oppositional group acted is of tremendous importance. Ono can support such a group; one can be neutral to it, or one can combat it. All of those steps can be taken by foreign countries, and that is the only reason why I put my question, and I consider myself obligated to continue with this point of view.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I don't think Mr. Justice Jackson's objection was to the fact that the diplomatic representatives were there but to comment upon the reasons why they were there. If all you want to prove is the fact that they were there, then I don't think Mr. Justice Jackson was objecting to that. What the defendant was going on to give was his opinion of why the diplomatic representatives were there.
DR. DIX: I believe I do not need to make a further reply, your Honor.
He has already said that he does not wish to give a further explanation, but if your Lordship will permit me, I shall continue. BY DR. DIX: official capacity and privately you came in contact with prominent foreigners. What position did they take at the time when power was established by the National Socialists, and what attitude did they take, and how did their attitude influence your attitude and your activity?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I dislike to interrupt with objections, but I can't see how it exonerates or aids this defendant that prominent foreigners may have been deceived by a regime for which he was furnishing the window dressings with his own name and prestige. Undoubtedly there were foreigners, I am willing to stipulate there were foreigners, like Dahlerus, who were deceived by this set-up of which he was a prominent and slightly respectable part. But it does seem to me if we are going to go into the attitude of foreigners who are not indicted here or accused that we approach endless questions.
The question is here, as I have tried to point out to Dr. Dix, the sole thing that is charged against this witness is that he participated in the conspiracy to put this nation into war and to carry out the war crimes and crimes against humanity incidental to it.
Now, I can't see how the attitude of foreigners either exonerates or helps the Court to decide that question. If it does, of course I don't object to it, but I can't see the importance of it at this stage.
DR. DIX: I do believe -
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. Dr. Dix, what exactly was the question you were asking at that moment? What had it reference to?
DR. DIX: I asked the witness what the attitude was that was taken by prominent foreigners with whom he came in contact, officials and private contact, what the attitude was in the period while power was being established by the regime, whether they rejected the regime, whether they were sympathetic to it -- in other words, just how they influenced him and his thoughts. And may I say one more thing?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you know, Dr. Dix, that to ask one witness what the attitude of other people is a very much too general form of question. Attitude -- what does the word mean? It is far too general, and I don't understand exactly what you are trying to prove.
DR. DIX: I will make the question a little more precise, your Honor. BY DR. DIX:
Q How, Dr. Schacht, through your exchange of thoughts with foreigners, was your attitude influenced? How was your attitude and your activity influenced through the attitude of these foreigners?
DR. DIX: That is something which Dr. Schacht can testify to alone, because it is something that is inner and personal to Schacht, your Lordship. On the evidence which seems relevant to the Prosecution, I will not wish to conceal anything. group Schacht was -- that this group did not receive any support from abroad, but that foreigners made the opposition more difficult. That is not a criticism that is leveled towards foreign governments. There is no doubt that they were speaking for countries who were taking that attitude, and the representatives took the same stand. But it was of decisive value for this oppositional group to know how the foreign countries were taking their position to this regime, whether it admired or whether it supported it, or through caution and reserve it would show its disinclination, and therefore would strengthen this oppositional group. carrying on of the defense, and I will fight for this piece of evidence as I see it, because it is of the utmost importance to the defense.
THE PRESIDENT; Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has considered the argument which you have presented to it and they think that the investigation of those facts is a waste of time and is irrelevant. They will, therefore, ask you to go on with the further examination of the defendant BY DR. DIX:
Q Dr. Schacht, when we deal with armament, you supported it through your finances in the Reichsbank. Why did you do that? equality an absolute necessity for Germany and I am of the same opinion today; and in order to reach this state, it was necessary that either the disarmament, which had been promised by the Allied Powers, would come into effect or that if the benefit for equal rights were to be obtained, Germany would have to re-arm in a corresponding manner. decreed through the directorate of the Reichsbank?
A In the Reichsbank, the Fuehrer principle applied; the bringing in of Fuehr principle into the Reichsbank was always rejected by me. The Reichsbank was governed by a group of men in which all members had an equal power to vote and if there was a"tie", the vote of the chairman was the decisive vote, and beyond that the chairman had no rights. and I am asking, and with consideration, for the contents of this affidavit which the Tribunal knows. Did Puhl participate to this effect for rearmament?
A Mr. Puhl participated in all decisions which were made by the Reichsbank directorate and not once did he dissent from the decision reached. the discounting of the so-called notes took place and the prosecution has mentioned this fact, and the affidavit signed by Puhl says that this method made it possible to keep the size of rearmament secret. Is that correct?
A We cannot even talk about keeping secret of armament. I call your attention to excerps from documents submitted by the prosecution, which they submitted and used as evidence. I would like to cite and quote first of all from the affidavit by Geroge Messersmith, dated the 30th August 1945, 2395-PS, where it says on page three line nineteen:
"Immediately with the assumption of power, the Nazis launched a tremendous program of rearmament."
And on page eight it says that:
"A tremendous German armament program which was never a secret," and so forth. Mr. George Messersmith, who was in Berlin at the time, knew in any event about those matters and I am sure informed his colleagues about those matters also. I would also like to quote from EC-461. It is the diary of Ambassador Dodd, where it says, on the 19th of September 1934, and I quote in English for I just have the English text before me:
"When Schacht declared that the Germans are not arming so intensively, I said last January and February, Germany bought from American aircraft people one million dollars worth of high-class war flying machinery and paid in Gold," on which occasion he pointed out that already in January and February 1939 -
(A mechanical disturbance in the courtroom at this point.)
THE PRESIDENT. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: TheTribunal would, like to know how long you expect to be with your examination in chief of the defendant. You have already been nearly a whole day, and the Tribunal think that in view of the directions in the Charter, the examination of the defendant certainly ought to finish in a day.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, there are two things I don't like doing, to make promises which I can't keep, or to promise something which can't come true. that I can finish today. I am fully aware of the statute of the Charter, but on the other hand I am a king you to consider that the accusations a ainst Schacht have been backed by numerous pieces of evidence by the Prosecution, relevant facts, which have been used to try to prove the accusation, and that it is my duty to refer to these individual pieces of evidence offered by the Prosecution.
Please apply strict measures to my questions. If the Tribunal should be of the opinion that there is something irrelevant, then I shall certainly adhere to their wishes, but I do think that I not only have the right, but also the duty to put any questions which are necessary to contradict the evidence submitted by the Prosecution.
I shall, therefore, certainly not be able to finish today. I should be extremely grateful if your wouldn't make me prophesy. I shall hurry as much as possible, and I may finish in the course of tomorrow, but it may even take the whole day -- I can't say for certain. I shall make every effort to nut only relevant questions, and if the Tribunal should be of the opinion that they aren't relevant, then please tell me and I shall give the reasons for my conception.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better pet on at once then, Dr. Dix, and we'll tell you when we think your questions are too long or too irrelevant. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Now, Dr. Schacht, in the case of the Mefo Bill, did you consider them a suitable means of keeping the rearmament secret? Have you anything else to say to that question?
A. The Mefo Bills as such, and as far as the fact of armament was concerned, did not connect with the question of secrecy. The Mefo Bills went to every supplier who wasbeing paid with them. There were, of course, hundreds and thousands of small suppliers everywhere in the country. Bills were amongst the public for at least three months, and any businessmen who required cash used the Mefo Bills to discount them in their banks or to have advances made on the strength of them, so that all banks knew about this particular system. by the Reichsbank were listed on the bill account of the Reichsbank, and furthermore, I should like to say on the question of keeping state expenditures secret, and armament expense as well, that state expenditure, of course, was not a matter for the President of the Reichsbank but an affair concerning the Minister of Finance. If the Reich Minister of Finance did not publish guarantees which he had issued in connection with Mefo Bills, then that was his affair and not mine, and for that I am not responsible. The responsibility for it is in the Reich Minister of Finance.
DR. DIX: The next question, your Lordship, might allow doubts as to whether the question is relevant. I personally consider the information not relevant for this trial, but it has been mentioned by the Prosecution, and for that reason alone I think it is my duty to give Dr. Schacht to justify his actions and reply. Mefo Bills, from the point of view of a reasonable, solid financial procedure might have allowed objections. One might adopt the view that that may be the case or not, but -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Ask the question, Dr. Dix. Ask the question BY DR. DIX:
Q. You have heard, of course, Witness, what I have been referring to.
A. It is a matter of course that in normal times and in normal economic practices, such means as Mefo Bills would not have been used. But if there is an emergency, then it is always customary, and it has always been a policy all scientists, that the currency banking institute should take care to furnish cheap money and should furnish credits so that the economic system can, in turn, be operating on the strength of it.