I am requesting them especially for the following reasons: When I gave my reasons for wanting evidence, I made the motion that the files of the British Admiralty be brought in, which dealt with the preparations and planning regarding Scandinavia, that is in Norway. Sir David did not object at that time, but said only that he would have to consult the British Admiralty. The High Tribunal decided in accordance with my motion and granted my motion. In the meantime, the British Admiralty has reprieved it, and I assume that Sir David agrees with me. May I give the answer which has been put at my disposal? This answer is as follows: May I just make a preliminary remark?
THE PRESIDENT: We have had the answer, I think, have we not? We have had the answer and transmitted it to you.
DR. SIEMERS: Very well. Thank you very much. Therefore, even though I have the approval, I cannot do anything with it. Further, we can see that certain facts, which are essential to my evidence, are admitted by the British Admiralty, but, unfortunately, I do not have the possibility to prove my case through documents. Since I am unable to make use of this evidence, at least please grant me the other possibility of presenting evidence, that is the documents contained in the German White Books. These are recognized documents. In all cases they are facsimiles, but these matters may be checked and investigated and I believe -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, we are dealing with your application for particular documents. We are not dealing with any general argument or general criticisms that you have to make. We are only hearing you in answer to certain objections on behalf of the British Prosecution.
DR. SIEMERS: Your Honor, if I am not quite mistaken, in which case please correct me, Sir David, under the heading "F", which contains many documents, 59 to 91, with just a few exceptions, defined his position to these documents in general, and not each document separately. I will refer to each document separately, if you wish, but, in fact, I will have to say the same thing to practically each document and ask only that I be granted these documents on toto, for I cannot make much headway without these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You were not referring to these documents. You were referring to the fact that the British Admiralty was not prepared to disclose its files to you. It has nothing to do with these documents at all.
DR. DIEMERS: I believe I have been misunderstood, Your Honor. Previously, I set forth very clearly why I need these documents for the carrying on of evidence regarding the Norway action but, beyond that I said, if these documents are not granted me, then I cannot carry on my case and I cannot defend my case. But I did ask the High Tribunal to take into consideration that the documents from London, which I had planned on, are not at my disposal, and I do not know why the request, which I submitted to the Tribunal in setting forth my reasons, is hold against me by the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all you have to say?
DR. SIEMERS: I have concluded then, Your Honor. I may say only that it is not my intention at all to submit these documents in their entirety or read them in their entirety, but I wish to say that, if I am granted these documents, I can carry on my case much more easily and expeditiously, for these groups of documents show development in periods of time and the plans that were going on at that time. If I have a certain number of documents, I do not have to read each one; but, if I am just granted one document, I will be put in an extremely difficult position and will have to be more circumstantial which, if I can just refer to these documents -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider it.
Now, Dr. Dix. BY DR. DIX (Counsel for defendant Schacht): co-knowledge as to the direct war objectives of Hitler. You rather skimmed the fact that Hitler never mentioned war to you. Do you have anything to add to this original statement? peaceful intentions and his intention to disarm.
attitude? Did the various members of the cabinet speak to you about their intent about the war? cabinet, did I ever hear anything that would point to the fact that anyone had the intention or would hail the fact if Germany would start a war.
Q Now, we will turn to your own attitude towards the war. You rather generally have indicated your position when you told us your ideology as a pacifist. I believe, therefore, it is more expedient if I refer to my document book and read an extract, and read the voice of a third party, a party who knows you very well, that is the former member of the Reichsbank directorate, Mr. Huelse. It is the document book Schacht 37-C, page 160 of the German text, and 168 of the English text. It is an affidavit. And there, beginning with paragraph 2, Huelse says:
"I recall several occasional talks with Dr. Schacht during the years 1935 to 1939 concerning war and armament. During these talks he always expressed his aversion toward any war and any war-like conduct. He represented the firm viewpoint that a war would bring even the winner only disadvantages and that a now European war would on the whole be a crime against culture and humanity. He hoped for Germany for a long period of peace which she needed more than other countries in order to improve and stabilize its unstable economic situation.
"To my knowledge until early in 1938, Dr. Schacht in meetings of the Reich Bank Board of Directors and in private conversations on the subject of armament spoke only of defense measures. I believe I can recall that he told me in the middle of the year 1938 that Hitler's provocative measures against Austria and the Sudeten country would from the military standpoint have been worse then thoughtless. He said that Germany had undertaken only a defensive armament plan, which was to serve as a defense against an attack by a larger power, but Hitler would really not have to count on that Probably he had never heard that the Wehrmacht was suitable or armed for a war of attack.
"When the war did break out and expanded more and more, he repeatedly said that he had erred in his judgment of the personality of Hitler; that he had hoped for long that Hitler would actually develop into a statesman who, after the experiences of the first World War, would avoid each and every war." Now, please give me your concrete statement to the actual Anschluss which took place and tell me about the manner and the attitude you took about the manner in which the Anschluss took place. that, and the Austrians did, too, and the various political negotiations which had taken place between Hitler, Schuschnigg, and so forth, pro and con, but, naturally, I was not advised about these negotiations, neither were the other ministers of the cabinet, with the exception of Goering and von Ribbentrop, and, perhaps, one or two more. The actual Anschluss in March was a complete surprise to us. I do not mean the fact of the Anschluss, but I mean the date. It was a complete surprise, as I said, and I and my acquaintances were not prepared for this.
Q How did you judge the manner and the phase of the Anschluss?
A. I believe as far as the form and the manner is concerned, I can say that the things that I have heard subsequently and also in these proceedings are not entirely gladsome, but I believe the fact of the Anschluss had very little practical influence. The whole thing was more or less of a demonstration to the outside world, as, perhaps, the marching into the Rhineland, but as far as the actual turn of events was concerned, the marching in of the troops was more or less of a solemn reception.
Q. The Prosecution contends that in March, 1938 the relationship between the schilling and the mark was regulated by you in the case of an Anschluss, and the Prosecution, I am sure, wants to prove that you had previous knowledge of this step of the Anschluss. Will you please tell us your position.
A. The facts to which the Prosecution refer are in the report of Oberstleutnant Zimmermann. On the 11th, in the afternoon about three o'clock, I believe I recall that, but I can not say whether it was by telephone or personally, that some lieutenant -- it may have been Heilemann -- inquired from me how the means of purchasing power for the troops would be regulated if German troops should march into Austria. He was interested in the currency problem. He wanted to know whether there were to be certain regulations in this regard, and I told him that, of course everything had to be paid for, that anything the troops bought would have to be paid for by them, and that the rate of exchange, if they paid in schillings rather than in marks, would be one mark as against two schillings. That was the rate which prevailed at the time. It had been fairly stable, and that was the active rate of exchange between the schilling and the mark. is the best proof that I had no prior knowledge of these matters.
Q. The Prosecution further accuses you that in your speech after the marching in of the troops you gave a National Socialist speech, used National Socialist phraseology and hailed the Anschluss. Perhaps we can use this opportunity to save time and to really define our position to the repeated accusation by the Prosecution that in speeches you used a tone of which it might perhaps be said that it was tinged with National Socialist phraseology.
That is something of which you have been accused. Will you please define your position and give reasons for your attitude?
A. If I did so in the first few years, I did so only in order to remind the Party and the people of the original Party program, to which the behavior of the Party dignitaries was in sharp opposition. I also tried to prove that the basic facts which I maintained in many political things agreed completely with the basic facts of the National Socialist program and were indicated in the wording of the program. That is equal rights for all, dignity of the individual, admiration for the church and so forth. phraseology, for, beginning with my speech at Koenigsberg, the antipathy between my opinions and Hitler's was entirely clear as far as the Party was concerned, and slowly I received the reputation among the Party as an enemy of the Party; that is, I was considered a man who had an opinion contrary to that of the Party. From that moment on, the possibility of my existence was endangered and in such moments when I saw my life, my freedom and my activity especially threatened, I laid a special emphasis on National Socialist phraseology to show that I wanted to remain in the sphere of the Party and of politics and that I wanted to cooperate with this policy in order to protect myself against these attacks.
Q. Therefore, to remind you of Gisevius and his word that you used certain methods. I am not completely familiar with them. May I read a brief extract in this connection from the affidavit of Schwiewind which has been quoted repeatedly. It is Exhibit No. 34. I have repeatedly indicated this page. It is German page 118, and 126 of the English text. It is quite brief. Schwiewind says:
"If Schahct on the other hand occasionally made statements which could be construed as more intensive identifiaction with the Hitler regime, then these statements were naturally known to us, but what Schacht thought in reality was known by almost every official in the Reichsbank and in the Reich Ministry for Economics. Above all, of course, by his closest co-workers.
"On Several occasions we asked Dr. Schacht if he had not gone too far in these statements.
He always replied that he was so strongly under fire from the Party and the SS that he could camouflage himself only with strong slogans and statements." official at the Ministry of Economics and worked directly under Schacht and with him. that you admitted that you thought Hitler capable of the intention of attack. Will you please tell us about that?
A. That affidavit of the British Major Tilly is entirely correct. I talked with Sir Tilly in preliminary interrogations, and I told him that in the year 1938, in the course of the events of the Fritsch affair and during the sunsequent time, I had reached the conviction that Hitler would not wish to avoid a war at all costs and that possibly he might seek to bring about a war, and I contemplated a series of statements by Hitler and asked myself the reason why Hitler in the course of the years had reached a conviction of this sort, that he might not avoid a war. my impression. My impression in fact was that Hitler had fallen into the role of each and every dictator who did not wish to resign in time from his seat of power -- that he must of necessity be ready to bring a certain amount of victory to his people, and I figured that that was the development of thought that took place in Hitler.
Q. Then, does the same explanation given about Napoleon by Count Metternich apply?
A. Yes.
Q. In parentheses and in passing, that first suspicion came to you with the Fritsch affair. The witness Gisevius has described the Fritsch affair at length to the Tribunal. We do not wish to repeat anything. Therefore, I am asking you to testify in the case of the Fritsch affair only as to those points over and above the testimony of Gisevius or those which differ.
DR. DIX: If that would take a considerable period of time, -- of course I can not judge that -- then I might perhaps suggest that we have our recess now, if the High Tribunal wishes.
A. I have just a brief remark.
DR. DIX: It is a brief remark. May he answer the question briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if he can do it briefly, we had better have it not.
A. It is just a single remark that I have to add. The picture given by Gisevius about the happenings of the Fritsch affair is, in my knowledge and my experience with the matter, completely correct in each and every detail. I have nothing to add. I can only confirm the report given by Gisevius, but on the other hand I would like to refer to one speech of Hitler which he made on 20 February 1938 in the Reichstag. On that occasion, he made a remark which even at that time aroused my attention. He said -- and I quote this speech according to "Die Dokumente Der Deutschen Politik", which was available:
"The changes in the Reich Cabinet and in military administration from 4 February --" That is these changes which were made subsequent to the Fritsch affair -- "realized the strengthening of the military means to power and were to reach those military means of power, which the general times may indicate today." turning point from a peaceful to a military policy on Hitler's part, and I did not wish to avoid making reference to this so that I might complete the picture given by Gisevius.
DR. DIX: This is exhibit Number 28 of my document book, page 81 of the English text, page 74 of the German text. That is where you will find this passage.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will adjourn now for ten minutes.
(A recess was taken) BY DR. DIX: (Counsel for Defendant Schacht) about his intention to wage a war. By either speaking directly or indirectly did you participate in any such meetings? and Hitler. Did you not say so or did you follow Hitler's instructions at all times and can you in particular refer to your actual attitude for instance to the Jewish, Church Gestapo, Free Masons and other such questions? instructions, which were against my convictions and that I have not done anything either which was against my convictions. That from the beginning to Hitler personally I spoke my convictions and not only to my circle of friends and in the party circles, but before the entire public I spoke of my own convictions and I never concealed my views. soon after the cleaning-out action of the party on June 30th, I pointed out to Hitler that his actions were illegal. been presented by the Prosecution in half, which is a written report made by me on May 3, 1935, when I handed it to Hitler personally. The reason why I remember the date so exactly is because it came during a trial run of the Lloyd Steamer Scharnhorst, during which Hitler and I were both present. formed a sort of unit. Half concerned the fact that the wild and continuous collections made by various organizations of the party were to be stopped. being used for the purposes of the party, particularly for institutions and the building up of the party, but that the money was needed by us urgently for the expenses of the state, which had to of course include rearmament.The second half of that Document dealt with the culture questions.
The defense and I have made efforts for months to procure that second half of the Document from the Prosecution since the first half of the Document was submitted as evidence to this Tribunal. It has been impossible to obtain that second half. I must therefore confine myself to reiterating the contents.
I want to say, to begin with, that all such statements regarding the erroneous cultural and legal stand of the party and of Hitler could only be raised by me by giving as a reason my sphere of influence.
I stated therefore that my foreign policy was not seriously being damaged through the illegal and inhuman cultural and illegal policy as it was being carried out by Hitler. I pointed to the hostile attitude to the churches and in particular to the illegal treatment of the Jews. Furthermore I referred to the absolute illegal and willful handling of the actions of the Gestapo regime. I remember in that connection, I referred to the British Habeas Corpus Act, which for centuries in the past had been protecting the rights of the individuals and I expressed the fact that this wilfull attitude in the Gestapo was considered be me to be despicable before the entire world. run of the Lloyd Steamer Scharnhorst. Immediately after he read it, he called me to him and tried to quiet me down by making a statement similar to those which he made in July of 1934 when he told me these were temporary symptons of Revolutionary developments and that as time went by this would indeed sort itself out and disappear.
the explanations or become calm. A few weeks afterward, on the 18th of August, 1935, I used to visit to the Eastern Exhibition at Koenigsberg to mention in the speech which I had to make those very things. Hitler aboard the Scharnhorst at the beginning of May.
In this connection I didn't only talk about the question of churches or the question of the Jews or the question of wilful actions. I also talked about the Free Masons, and I quote only a few sentences from that speech, with the permissio of the Tribunal. They are very short. I am speaking about people, and I now quote
Q Just one moment. I want to tell the Tribunal that this is the Koenigsberg speech, which I have submitted to the Tribunal this morning.
A I am talking about people in this connection, and i now quote:
"People who in the dark of nights are smearing letters on windows, who brand every German who trades in a Jewish store as a traitor, who condemn every former Free Mason as a bum, and who, in the just fight against priests and ministers who talk politics from the pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion and misuse of the pulpit." End of Quotation, and then another sentence. I quote:
"As before, according to the legal state of affairs and on the strength of various declarations made by the Deputy of the Fuehrer, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and the Reich Minister for public Enlightenment and Propaganda (not to mention the Ministry of Economics), Jewish businesses have been permitted to carry on their business activities."
End of quotation, and then in the last sentences I quote:
"No one in Germany is deprived of his rights. According to Point 4 of the National Socialist Party program, the Jew can neither become a citizen or a fellow German. But Point 5 provides legislation for him That means he must not be under arbitrary action, but under the law." in the future.
Q Dr. Schacht, did the regime allow you to make that speech? statements made by Gesevius with reference to the speech of von Papen, the same question was discussed, since up to then my speeches weren't subjected to being censored, something which I wouldn't have stood for.
Station. In that way Propaganda Minister Goebbels got knowledge of the speech, an d at once he issued an order prohibiting the publication of that speech in the papers. As a result, although the speech went over the broadcasting station, it did not appear in any newspaper. Since the Reichsbank, fortunately, had printing arrangements of its own, which were of course not subjects to censorship, I had the speech printed in the Reichsbank printing shop; and 250,000 copies of it were distributed to the 400 branches of the Reichsbank in the country, thus going to every corner of the Reich. In that manner it became known to the entire population
Q You were going to continue, weren't you? fact, looking for, I again and again referred to those points. I should only like to touch upon two things in this connection.
This morning I mentioned the letter written by me on the 24th of December 193* written by me to the Reich Minister of War, and in that connection I referred to these matters. I should only like to add the words, which I shall now quote. I quote: "The economic and illegal political treatment of the Jews, the antichurch activities of certain Party organizations, and the legal arbitrariness associated with the Gestapo form a detriment," and so on and so forth, "to my task On the 12th of May 1936, there is a record of the so-called "small Ministerial Council," which has been used as evidence by the Prosecution and submitted to the Tribunal.
That shows once more the same attitude. I quote from that record in which it says:
"Dr Schacht, in addition, emphasized quite openly again and again that a cultural and legal policy would have to be pursued which would leave the economic system alone." End of quotation. use my legitimate arguments in that capacity.
And now the last example of a type of which there are many more which I can't furnish today. There is a speech on the occasion of the celebration of handicraft apprentices, within the Berlin Chamber of Handicraft, which took place on the 11th of May 1937. On that occasion I said the following, and I quote:
"No community and most of all no State, can flourish which is not based on legality, order and discipline."
End of quotation.
And a second sentence, I quote:
"For that reason you must not only respect the right and the law, but you must act against injustice and lack of legal actions everywhere, wherever you me* it." End of quotation. smaller circle, but because I without any fear and on every opportunity made known these views publicly, it brought the result that a few weeks ago the chief of the RSHA Department 111, Security Service, witness Ohlendorf, upon being asked described me as an enemy of the Party, at least since 1937 or 1938. known, since he had the task of combatting any political opponents.
DR. DIX: May I point out that the statements made during the meeting of the Small Cabinet Council, the 12th of May 1936, are contained in my document book, "Schacht," Exhibit Number 20; page 47 of the English Text, page 51 of the German text.
As far as Schacht's speech before the Industrial and Commercial Chamber is concerned -- Handicraft Chamber, rather -
THE WITNESS: You should have said the Chamber of Handicraft.
DR. DIX: --that is something I shall refer to later when I file the proper document, and I now continue.
BY DR. DIX: should merely like to ask you: Did you participate in any other Party functions? the Party.
Q The Indictment contains, literally, the following sentence. You are being accused that you had used your personal influence and your close connections to the Fuehrer for the purpose which we all know. Did you, after you had made all your experiences, did you have any influence upon the Fuehrer?
A I myself, as far as any influence on the Fuehrer's actions and decisions are concerned, can say that, unfortunately, I have never had any such influence. I have only had any such influence in so far as he consulted me in my special capacity as financial and economic expert, and he didn't wish to disturb me. Apart from that, the lack of influence on the part of all members of Hitler's entourage has been mentioned by various witness. So much has been said about it that I think I need not trouble the Tribunal with any further statements on that subject. of who had influence, the question of the influence of the Reich Cabinet, to the question regarding the meetings of the Reich Cabinet, and so on and so forth, Various witnesses have made statements on that subject, but have you get anything new to add?
A I can only and, speakeng generally, that the Cabinet in the Reich didn't have the least influence on Hitler, and that since November 1937 -- this has been stated repeatedly in this Court room -- there were no meeting and no consultations of the Cabinet.
The Reich Cabinet was a group not in any way inter-connected. It was politically impotent and its ministers were of course perfectly capable in that sphere.
DR. DIX: I now come to the number of the speech before that chamber of handicraft workers. It is Exhibit No. 30, page 69 in the English text and page 82 of the German text. BY DR. DIX:
Q Mr. Schacht, what was the situation regarding rearmament? Whose will was decisive regarding the degree of rearmament? that Hitler's will only was the decisive factor. credit giver and money lender? I had done nothing at all which I would not assume responsibility for. influence regarding Hitler? In this connection, I remind you of a conversation you had with Ambassador Bullitt in 1937. some other connection before and the memorandum of Ambassador Bullitt is available as an exhibit which was presented to the Tribunal by the prosecution. I merely refer to the sentence which refers to me and I quote: "He" -- that is to say, Schacht -- "introduced his statements with the words that he today was himself without any influence upon the man" -that is to say, Hitler. "He appeared to consider himself as finished politically and appeared to have little respect for the man." That, as I said, was in November, 1937, but if I may have permission to add this, I want to point out that in my position and my activities in the directing of public affairs in Germany, I continuously informed my friends abroad -and upon some later occasion, one or the other example which I shall quote, will prove it.
DR. DIX: I now draw your attention to Exhibit No. 22, page 44 of the English text.
BY DR. DIX: Economy. You have made statements regarding the obtaining of foreign raw materials or you have quoted corresponding passages. Couldn't there be replacements from sources in the Reich? inland products. We have learned in the meantime about a large number of new materials which we didn't know before. be replaced in that manner and could only be obtained through foreign trade channels.
Q And what was your attitude towards the question of autharchy? without undue expenditures which would have been a waste of German public property and German work, certain synthetic materials could be produced in Germany, then one should do so but that apart from that, the main tendency of foreign trade was advisable for economic reasons and was an absolute necessity and that it was an even more outstanding necessity, that for reasons of international cultural exchanges and the living together amongst the nations and isolation of the nations was always considered as a considerable misfortune by me just as I have always regarded commerce as one of the means of bringing about an international understanding.
Q Who was the exponent of the thought of autharchy? Four Year Plan was always originating from Hitler and after the task of heading the Four Year Plan had been given to Goering, Goering, too, of course, represented that line of thought.
Q Did you express your views before Goering and Hitler? every opportunity.
Q One question as an "aside". You remember that Goering explained in this courtroom, or what Goering stated in this courtroom --- I remind you of the time when Goering shouted in the courtroom "I should like to know where the 'No men' are;" and I want to ask you whether you claim to have the honorable title of the "No man" opposed to "Yes man," and you probably remember in that connection whatever you said to Goering in November 1942.
things corresponding to my inner-conviction, I did say "no." Continuous misdeeds committed by the Party were not suffered in silence by me. I turned against them on every occasion both personally, officially and publicly. I said "no" to all those things. I blocked credits. I opposed the rearmament. I talked against the war and I took steps to prevent the war. I would not know to whom else that title of the "No man" could be allotted if it isn't I.
Q Didn't you swear an oath of allegiance to Hitler?
A I did not swear an oath of allegiance to a certain Mr. Adolf Hitler. I swore allegiance to Adolf Hitler as the head of the State, the head of the German nation, just as I had not sworn allegiance to the Kaiser or to President Ebert or to President Hindenburg; except in that capacity of the head of the state, I did not swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler. The oath of allegiance which I did swear to, to the head of the German state, does not apply to the person of the head of the state; it applied to what he represents, the German nation. Perhaps I might add one thing in this connection. I consider that you cannot give an oath of allegiance to one who commits perjury and Hitler has turned out to be a perjurer in hundreds of cases. Four Year Plan and its origin, and its preparation, and so on and so forth, and I would like you to tell us what were the consequences you drew from the prophecies which existed in this connection. Please, will you briefly tell us whether you have anything to add to Goering's statements or do you divert in your memory?
A I gather from Goering's statements that he has described conditions perfectly correctly and I myself have nothing at all to add unless you have anything special in mind.
impression you gathered, that you were an obstacle in the way of a speedy and complete rearmament. Did he recognize your economic arguments? Was he satisfied with your policy or not? introduced, I could not recognize which inner attitude Hitler had as far as I was concerned, as far as these economic political questions were concerned. I want to say that his general disgust against me existed -- this was in a speech at Koenigsberg in August 1935; it was an established fact. His attitude regarding my economic political activities was something which in 1936, I could not tell for certain, because I had not in any way participated in the preparation of the Four Year Plan but had received it as a surprise during the Party meeting and because we, quite unexpectedly, found that Hermann Goering was put at the head of the Four Year Plan and not the Minister of the Economy, something which I also learned during the Party meeting in September 1936, and because of those facts which I have just mentioned, it became clear to me that Hitler, as far as economic policy was concerned, did not have the amount of confidence in me which he thought necessary. Afterwards, here in this prison, my fellow defendant Speer showed me a memorandum which defendant Speer received from Hitler on the special occasion of his being appointed as Minister of Economy and which, curiously enough, did deal with the Four Year Plan and my activities in great detail, and which was dated August 1936. In August 1936, Hitler therefore with his own hand dictated this memorandum which now, during my imprisonment, fellow defendant Speer showed to me in prison, and I presume that I may have permission to read a few brief quotations from it.
DR. DIX: I just want to give an explanation to the Tribunal. This memorandum was kindly placed at our disposal through the agency of the Prosecution. We received it from the camp commandant. We then handed it in for translation so that we could submit it now, but the translation has not yet been completed. I shall submit the entire memorandum under a new exhibit number when I receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: Has any application been made in respect of it?
DR. DIX: No application has been made.
THE PRESIDENT: Which memorandum? Who drew it up?
DR. DIX: It is a memorandum of Hitler's. It is Hitler's memorandum of the year of 1936, three copies of which exist, and one of them was found in the camp "Dustbin". That copy was only received here a fortnight or three weeks ago, after our document book had been discussed with the Prosecution, and I intended to submit that memorandum and its translation today and at the same time ask your permission to submit it in evidence, but unfortunately I am not in a position to do so since the translation has not yet been completed. My colleague, Professor Kraus, was even told that it has been mislaid.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, let the defendant go on, and you can submit the document in evidence and a translation afterwards.
DR. DIX: Very well. The defendant has a copy and he will quote the most important, very brief, passages.
THE WITNESS: I can quote very brief passages. Hitler says in the memorandum, amongst other things, and I quote:
"It is not the task of the State political economic institutions to wrack their brains about methods of production. This does not concern the Ministry of Economy." accusation against me.
A further quotation:
"It is furthermore essential that iron production in Germany should be increased to the extreme. The objection that we are not in a position to produce cheap raw iron from German ore, which has only 26 per cent of iron content, similar to the 25 per cent Swedish ores, is without foundation.
The objection that in this case the entire German smelting works would have to be reconstructed is also irrelevant, and most of all, this is none of the business of the Ministry of Economy." would only allow production of steel with very much higher expense in comparison to 45 per cent ore, and I had further explained that in order to use 26 per cent ore, one would have to have completely different plants that one would use for the use of 45 per cent ore. Hitler states that this none of the business of the Ministry of Economy, and that, of course, means Mr. Schacht.
There is one last, very brief quotation. I quote:
"I want to emphasize in this connection that I consider these tasks the only economic mobilization which exists, and that I do not consider the curtailing of the armament industry as any such possibility." BY DR. DIX:
Q. We have now reached the stage of tension and controversy between you and Goering, the contention between you and Hitler regarding your conduct of business as Minister of Economy. What was the state of affairs regarding your views at the time, and regarding the intention of resigning as Minister? What was the possibility of your resignation?
Please don't repeat in this connection anything that Lammers and other witnesses have already told you regarding the impossibility of resigning. Please talk only about your own special case and what your yourself did.
A. First of all, I tried to continue my own exonomic policy, although Goering had been given the task of running the Four-Year Flan and did, of course, as months went by, take over as many economic-political tasks as possible. But at the first opportunity when Goering infringed on my rights as Minister of Economy, I tried to force my release from the Ministry of Economy. That was in the beginning of August 1937.