LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean read them?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: With the permission of the Tribunal, I have proposed to hand in that schedule, which is in effect a catalogue or index to the two bundles which the Tribunal had -- Bundle A and Bundle B -- and I proposed then putting this schedule in as an exhibit itself, which will become GB-450, and if the Tribunal agree, that would save reading any numbers out.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: There is another request I would make. The original of the newspaper, "Israelitsches Wochenblatt," was put in, or has been put in. Those volumes I have borrowed from a library, and I was going to ask the Tribunal' permission to have the extracts photographed and substitute, with the Tribunal's secretariat, the photostats and take back the originals so that they might be returned.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems no objection to that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I am very much obliged.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection to that, Dr. Marx?
DR. MARX (Counsel for Defendant Streicher): I have no objection. necessary. But the presentation of these documents is according to what -
THE PRESIDENT: You have a copy of this document here, this exhibit.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you whether you had any objection to the original of the Jewish newspaper being returned-
DR. MARX: No.
THE PRESIDENT: -- after it is photographed.
DR. MARX: No, I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
LT COL. GRIFFITH JONES: I am Very much obliged.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Dix? follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued) BY DR. DIX:
Q Dr. Schacht, I believe you should supplement the answer to the question I put to you yesterday. I put to you that there are memoranda to Hitler and letters from you to Hitler which were full of National Socialist phraseology, letters and memoranda from the date of the seizure of power until later when you went into opposition. The Prosecution, particularly in the oral presentation, if I remember correctly, referred to one letter which you sent to Hitler before the seizure of power in 1932, and there is another letter of large content of August 1932. I believe it would be proper if you would state your position with respect to these two letters, supplementing your answer to my question. 32, I had in no way interferred or intervened in the development of the National Socialist movement. I stepped aside completely, After that movement achieved its tremendous success in July, 1932, of which I spoke yesterday, I recognized clearly the developement to come; according to the principles of a democratic political concept there was only one possibility, and that was that the leader of that overwhelmingly large party now should receive the job of forming the government. The other theoretical possibility was a military government and in that connection, eventually a civil war, which I considered impossible from the beginning, and incompatible with my principles. I endeavoured to achieve an influence on Hitler and his movement, and that explain the two letters which you have mentioned.
Q Now, we come to the territorial plans of Hitler. What did you know about the plans of Hitler against Austria?
AAbout the plans against Austria I have never known anything. The plans Hitler had for Austria I did not know in detail either. I know only that in the same way as the majority of all Germans -- he was in favor of an Anschluss of Austria with Germany.
Q What did you know about his plans against Czechoslovakia? I did not know anything. Sudeten question, did you hear a statement of Hitler's, any remark of Hitler's about Munich which was of importance for your attitude toward Hitler?
Will you tell the Tribunal about that remark about which you have heard? time Hitler was given more in Munich than he had ever expected. According to my observation at that time -- and I expressed that also in my conversation with Ambassador Bullit --Hitler tried to achieve autonomy for the Germans in Czechoslovakia and in Munich the Allies presented him the Sudeten-German territories on a silver platter. I assumed, of course, that now Hitler's ambition would be satisfied and I was surprised and shocked-- and I must say that. When a few days after Munich I saw Hitler I did not have any further conversation with him at that time, but I met him surrounded by a few people, mostly SS men, and from the conversation between him and the SS leaders I could hear the remark, "That fellow has spoiled my march into Prague. That is to say, he used the word, "versiebt," which means" made impossible."
achieved with foreign politics, but he lacked that which I explained yesterday, the gloire, the whole build-up which I could understand from that remark. feelings toward Hitler? did my close friends, that by such an intervention on the part of Allied politics, our attempt to remove Hitler was -- and we didn't know what would happen in the future, of course, -- made impossible. But of course, at that moment we had to resign ourselves.
Q What did you know about the plans of Hitler against the Memel Land?
A I didn't know anything at all about that, and never heard anything about it. As far as I remember, I found out about the annexation of Memel Land on my trip to India, on which I had started. anything about the negotiations and the attack against Poland?
Q Therefore, we do not have to speak here about the May meeting of '39. Switzerland, and then I went to India, started on my trip to India via Genoa, so I neither heard about the Hacha affair, that is the establishment of the protectorate in Czechoslovakia, nor of Memel Land nor of Poland at all, because I did not return from the trip to India until the beginning of August. treated here. Did you approve these measures?
Q Did you express that disapproval at any place or at any time? Wagner who had been sent by Halder, and who, after the collapse, also committed suicide. He informed me about the intended invasion of Belgium. I was shocked, and I replied at that time, "If you want to commit that insane action, then no one can help you anymore."
THE PRESIDENT: What time?
THE WITNESS: Before the march into Belgium. When exactly it was, I could not say. It may have been in November 1939 or it may have been in April 1940, but I do not know for sure any more when it was.
BY DR. DIX:
in a struggle for life or death. Didn't that cause you, since you were still Minister Without Portfolio, although you had no particular field, to cooperate actively, to keep yourself at their disposal?
Q Did anyone ask you to do that? upon order of Chief of General Staff Halder, was to persuade me to support the German interest at the occasion of the invasion of Belgium, by supervising banking matters in Belgium, and I refused definitely. Falkenhausen, who wanted to consult me concerning the Belgian administration of finances, and I refused my advice and did not make any statement of any kind.
May I relate another instance where I was approached. One day, shortly after America was dragged into the war, I was approached by the newspaper published by Goebbels. They wanted me, because of my knowledge of American conditions, to write an article for that paper, Das Reich, to assure the German people that the war potential of the United States should not be overestimated. I refused to write that article, and explained that just because I knew American conditions very well, my explanation could only be just the opposite. There also, I refused. the Hoszbach meeting, or the meeting about which we have the Hoszbach notes? 1945, here in my cell, and I was very much surprised that during all previous interrogations I had never been asked about these notes, because it can be seen clearly from these notes that the Reich Government could not be and should not be informed about the warlike intentions of Hitler, and therefore could not know anything about them.
ory to attacks, for instance the meeting of November 1940 in which the attack on Russia was discussed? 1936 and therefore has nothing to do with the war. I never took part in any meeting which indicated any intentions of war or the attack on Russia, and never found out anything about it.
Q Does that also apply to the meeting of May 1940? not take part in any meeting in May 1940, nor in any such meeting. During the entire period when I was minister without portfolio, I never took part in any official meeting or conference. which the Japanese Foreign Minister Matsuoka had in Berlin? exception, of course, of whatever may have been on the radio or in the press. someone's disposal for Nazi propaganda the sum of 200,000 marks. your dismissal in order to get out of the financial responsibilities. I ask you to reply to that accusation and to tell the Tribunal briefly, but exhaustively, about your reasons and the practical deliberations which were at the basis of the memorandum of the Reichsbank Directorate which led to your dismissal and that of your assistants.
A I should like to divide the question into two parts. The first question is whether I tried to get rid of my job as President of the Reichsbank. To that question I have to answer yes. Since the middle of 1938, we in the Reichsbank always thought that if there should not be a change of the official course, we certainly did not desire to continue in office, because --and that brings me to the second part of the question -the responsibility which we were expected to share then, we did not want to assume.
defensive rearmament in order to achieve equality of Germany in international politics, that which we had done until then, we assumed responsibility, and we assume it before history and this Tribunal. But as to the responsibility for any further rearmament which eventually carried in itself the potential of danger of war or which would lead intentionally to war, that responsibility none of us wanted to assume. a further increased rearmament -- and I spoke about that yesterday in connection with the conversation of the 2nd of January 1939 which I had with him at that time -- when we found that out, when that became clear, we wrote the memorandum which is in the hands of this Tribunal, from which it can be seen clearly that we were opposed to every further increase of expenditure and would not assume any responsibility for that. From that, Hitler could see that he could not use the Reichsbank in the future for any purposes of financing rearmament with the same directorate and with the same president as they had then. because without the Reichsbank he could not go on, and he had to take another step. He had to change the Reichsbank Law. That is to say, the independence of the Reichsbank from government resolutions had to be removed. At first he did that secretly because we had that kind of thing of the 20th of January 1939. That law was published only about a half-year later, and that law removed the independence of the Reichsbank and the president of the Reichsbank became only a mere bank teller for the demands for credit by the government, that is to say, Hitler.
The Reichsbank directorate did not want to continue. It was therefore dismissed on the 20th of January, the Reichsbank president, the vice president, and the main financial expert, Reichsbank Director Huelse, and in addition three members of the directorate of the Reichsbank, Director Vocke, Director Erhardt, and Director Blessing insisted they be permitted to leave the Reichsbank.
Two other members of the Reichsbank directorate, Director Puhl, whose name has been mentioned here before, and Director Hoetschmann, remained in the directorate, and therefore they could not help but stay. randum, that is to say, to get out of that financial responsibility. The second accusation was that that memorandum does not mention limitations of armament explicitly, but that that memorandum essentially treats only matters of currency, finances, and economy, and that therefore it was not Dr. Schacht opposing rearmament, but a Dr. Schacht who was worried about matters of currency as President of the Reichsbank, and it was that Dr. Schacht who spoke in that memorandum. It is therefore necessary that you as the author, at least co-author of that memorandum, should state your position, your interpretation of that memorandum.
objection which I made to Hitler's actions--and that does not only go for myself but for all ministers--could only be made and expressed with arguments which were taken from the field in which one worked. Had I said to Hitler, "I cannot give you any more money because you intend to wage war," I would not have the pleasure to have this conversation with you. I would have had a conversation with my priest, and it would have been very unilateral, because I at this time would be silent in my tomb, and he would have had a monologue. about it one more moment. In conclusion--and please check me--I believe I understand you to mean that this memorandum in the end contained demands, such as further possibilities to raise funds by increase of taxation or other sources, both impossible. Taxation could not be increased. The free market, as far as capital was concerned, had already had an unsuccessful attempt at a loan. funds could not be raised for an unhealthy rearmament program. You could only construct your dismissal. Did I understand you correctly, or did I interpret you correctly? two possibilities of an answer, either a change of financial politics--and that meant to stop armament, that is to say, a basic change of Hitler's policy--or the Reichsbankpresident had to be thrown out. The latter happened. Hitler would definitely change his course by 180 degrees. ended with your dismissal.
A Hitler confirmed that himself. In that letter of dismissal he said it verbatim. We heard it, also, from the testimony of Mr. Lammers, that Hitler personally wrote that remark into the letter, that my name was connected and would remain connected with the first epoch of rearmament, but the second epoch of rearmament I refused. Hitler understood that very clearly, because when he received that letter from the Reichsbank he told the people around him, "This is mutiny."
Q How do you know that? the political stage could not be attributed to your opposition to war preparations but to disputes of power with Hermann Goering. As such, that reproach seems to be refuted by statements made by Goering and Lammers. made already by Goering and Lammers, or whether you disagree. entire evidence which he had studied he had not found a single item which showed my opposition to war politics. I can only say if a man, because he is near-sighted, does not see a tree, there is no reason to assume the tree is not there. remained a member of the Cabinet as a Reich Minister without portfolio. That That was the cause for the misunderstanding that occurred yesterday. portfolio, that is, Minister of Economy. Your Lordship has told me that he was still Minister, though without portfolio, until January 1943. Of that fact, witness, you were accused by the Prosecution. What caused you to remain Reich Minister without portfolio? Why did you do that? Did you have any financial reasons? I hope you will excuse me if I mention that here, but the trial brief, on page 5, accuses you of that motive. Minister of Economy met with great difficulties, and you have also submitted several affidavits. had occurred a break or a difference of opinion between one of his assistants and himself. When in the end he approved the dismissal, the resignation, he stated the condition that nominally I should remain Minister without portfolio.
wrong. There was a law in Germany that if a person had two public offices he could be paid only for one. Since I was still President of the Reichsbank and received at first my salary and then my pension from the Reichsbank, I did not receive any salary as a minister. portfolio, as such did you have anything really to do? Did you have anything to do with the resolutions of the Cabinet, or was that just a title, minister without portfolio? Did it have any substantial content? after I left the Reichsbank I did not receive a single official conference; that I did not take part in a single official meeting; and that on my part, unfortunately, I did not have any possibility to discuss anything. I lacked every factual basis for it, because I had no field of office work.
there were a few others--who did not have any official activity at all. For instance, in the case of Seyss-Inquart, who was minister without portfolio, he at least had his mission in Holland. in Poland. Schirach--I do not know whether he was minister without portfolio; I think it has been mentioned, but I am not sure if it is correct--he had his administration in Austria. I didn't have anything to do with the administration or in any way with the State or the Party at that time.
Q What about the current activities? Circulars by Lammers were sent out, and you were alleged to have contributed to that. I have said that I saw to it wherever there was any possibility, and I saw it very clearly here, very definitely--during the entire time until the collapse I received three official memoranda. The numerous invitations to official funerals and other social occasions are really not worth considering as official communications. I did not take part in these anyway. state. The first time it was a letter from Himmler, a circular or a suggestion for a law from Himmler, who intended, with, respect to jurisdiction over the anti-Social elements of the population, to have that transferred to the police or the Gestapo, that is to say, an administrative principle -
Q Well, that is known, Dr. Schacht. You can assume that that is known; which Frank had sent me, and where he emphasized that here there was a violation of the principles of law. That law was never made. It would have been extremely regrettable, because I am convinced that I myself was definitely an anti-Social element in Himmler's opinion.
about the State property, government property, in Yugoslavia after we had occupied Yugoslavia. I answered that since I did not take part in the preparatory discussions about that draft, I would ask to be excused from any cooperation.
The third incident occurred in November 1942. Apparently by mistake the draft for a law was circulated by the Reich Aviation Minister, which contained the suggestion to take boys of 15 and 16, students of 15 and 16, into the service of anti-aircraft. To this letter--because this was a welcome opportunity for me to state my opinion with regard to the military situation--I answered in a long letter which I sent to Goering -
Q The third of November?
A The 30th of November. There must be a mistake, the 30th of November. On the 2nd of December, I believe, it was taken personally by my secretary to the adjutant of Goering and given to the adjutant of Goering in a closed envelope, with the request that he should open it personally.
Q One moment, Dr. Schacht.
DR. DIX: That letter and been submitted under PS-3700 by the Prosecution, but it is also in our document book under Exhibit 23; page 66 of the English text and page 59 of the German text. If your Honors would have enough time, I would appreciate it greatly if I could read this letter here. It is a very nice letter. However, I have to consider the time, and therefore I ask you, Dr. Schacht, be say a few words about its content.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will read the letter. It isn't necessary for you to read it now, is it?
DR. DIX: All right. Well, then, may he state a few words about that letter shortly before the recess?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I could like to say, if it is permitted, that to my knowledge that letter has already been read here by the American Chief Prosecutor.
BY DR. DIX:
Q Read? I believe it is quite sufficient if you submit that letter in evidence. out portfolio? characterize, one can call you a Characktermajor.
A I don't know what a Characktermajor is, At any rate, I was never a Major, but I have always had character.
Q But, Dr. Schacht, that is a historical remark, made by Kaiser Wilhelm the First about the authority he had as German Emperor, to Bismarck.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a convenient time to break off.
(A recess was taken.)
BY DR. DIX:
Q. Dr. Schacht, we have been talking about the letter dated November the 30th, 1942, to Goering. Did that letter have any kind of consequences?
A. Yes, the letter had very considerable consequences. It had the result that on the 22nd of January I did at last receive my long hoped for dismissal from my position of a minister without portfolio. The reason given however, was such which wasn't quite so pleasant. I believe the letter is among the files of the Tribunal, There is a letter attached from Lammers.
Q. Yes, well, we have made it the subject of Lammer's interrogation, didn't we?
A. Yes. But I should only like to refer to the statement which says: "With reference to your entire conduct in the present frightful struggle of the German nation," which referred to my entire attitude.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it is Exhibit No 26 of our document book. It is on page 76 of the English text and on rage 69 of the German text. BY DR. DIX:
Q. Please continue.
A. My entire attitude during this war was, therefore, the reason leading to my dismissal, and the dismissal also contained the statement that I was being dismissed for the time being. According to Lammer's statement, as we heard it here the other day, it was also made on the Fuehrer's initiative and included in the letter. And I was perfectly clearly aware of that expression when I received the letter. I was a member, which, incidentally, was a board that hadn't met for at least eight years. At any rate, I wasn't at the meetings. Maybe it was six years, I'm not sure. The wording of that decision was communicated to me by the chairman of that State Counsel, Mr. Goering, and, because of its almost amusing contents, I still recollect it very clearly. It stated:
"My answer to your defeatism, which is undermining the resistance of the German people, and to the letter which you have written, is that I remove you from the Prussian State Counsel."
I'll say it was amusing because a sealed letter of mine couldn't possibly undermine the resistance of the German people. A further result was that Party leader Bormann demanded from me the return of the golden Party emblem, something which I did, of course, comply with at once. Apart from that, during the subsequent days, I was particularly closely watched by the Gestapo. I immediately left my apartment in Berlin; that is to say, within twenty-four hours, and for the whole day, both on foot and by car, the Gestapo spies followed me through Berlin, and I quietly retired to my farm in the country.
Q. Since on one occasion the trial brief mentioned material and other reasons for the decisions which you have made, the question appears justified to me as to just how the situation was regarding your property and your income after 1933. Please, will you in your reply take into consideration that it is remarkable that in 1942 you had an increased income.
A. A few months ago the press, apparently with the approval of the military government, have published a list of salaries and incomes which the Fuehrer had paid to Party leaders and ministers in Germany and, in connection with that, their income and their property was discussed, and I was on that list. I wasn't mentioned under "taxations", but it was stated that in 1942 I had an unusually high income. The whole list is incorrect, since the figure is a gross figure and does not take into consideration that from that figure the war profit tax was deducted, something which hadn't been known when that list was compiled. So that from the figure, which is stated in that connection, a possible eighty per cent must be deducted; and then the income is by no means remarkable any more. As far as my personal property is concerned, that list shows that in the period of ten years, and by comparison my property has hardly changed. And, I want to emphasize particularly in that connection that during the last twenty years my property remained approximately static and did not increase.
Q. If I remember rightly, than you on your own initiative reduced your owrn salary as president of the Reichsbank?
A. When, on Hitler's usggestion, President Hindenburg, in March of 1933, appointed me again to the position of president of the Reichsbank, Hitler left it to me to decide upon my own income.
At that time, I fixed my income to be less than twenty-five per cent than my former income as Reichsbank President, and voluntarily.
Q. Did you ever receive presents or donations from Hitler, be it money, be it in goods, or be it in presents?
A. As I've just mentioned, I have never received any kind of donations from Hitler, and I think he would hardly have risked offering me one. I did, indeed, receive a present on one occasion from Hitler, and that was on the occasion of my sixtieth birthday. He gave me a picture, which certainly had the value of about 20,000 marks. It was an oil painting by a German painter, Spitzweg; so that it would have the approximate value of 20,000 marks if it had been genuine. As soon as the picture was brought into my room I recognized it as a forgery, and I succeeded three months later to trace the original. I started proceedings about the genuineness of the picture, and the forgery was found out before a court.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to listen to this.
BY DR. DIX:
Q. Did Hitler ever give you the right to wear a uniform or give you a par military rank?
A. I think, so as to abreviate the conversation and if the Tribunal will permet me to do so, I will only say that I returned the forgery and it was never replaced; so that I haven't, in fact, received a present from Hitler Hitler offered me a uniform.
He said I could have any uniform I wanted, and I only raised my hand in defense and didn't accept one, not even the uniform of the civil servant.
Q Now, another subject: Do you know anything about concentration camps? camps, I heard, and quite frequently, that political opponents and other un popular or unconfortable persons were taken away to concentration camps. About this taking away of their liberty I was, of course, extremely perturbed at the time, and I continously demanded, as far as I had the opportunity during any conversations, that the arrest and the taking away to concentration camps should be followed by a legal proceeding, complete with defense, at a proper time. Reichminister of the interior Frick was making efforts in the same direction in the early days. In the subsequent days this type of locking up became less and less publicly known, and from that I gathered that these matters were secretive. Only much later -- that is to say, second half of 1934 and 1935 -
Q When you not Gisevius, you mean? deprivations of liberty, but that on certain occasions there was bodily ill treatment, such as beating, etc. I have already said before this Tribunal that as a result, as early as May 1935, I used an opportunity to draw Hitler's attention to these matters personally, and that I told him at the time that such a system would make us despicable to the whole world and would have to cease. I have also mentioned that I had publicly talked, too about these matters whenever there was a possibility of doing so. which started later on -- of all that I never heard anything at all. Probably first of all, these matters didn't start until the outbreak of war, and because beginning in 1939 I was living a very retired sort of life. to me when I was here in prison, but I did hear, as early as 1938 or thereabouts that there were deportations of Jews. Certain individual cases were brought to me, and I could only ascertain in each case that there were deputations to Theresienstadt, where there was supposed to be an assembly camp for Jews, where Jews were accommodated until a later date when the Jewish problem should be the treated further. Any physical ill treatment or even killing never did come to my knowledge.
Q Did you ever lock at a concentration camp? camps when, on the 23rd of July, 1944, I myself was dragged into a concentration camp. Before that I didn't look at a single concentration camp at any time, but after that I not only saw the normal concentration camps but also the death camp in Flossenburg.
Q Didn't you, in Flossenburg, receive the visit of a man thinking the same way you did? man brought to you or possibly to this Tribunal, and in which he describes that visit. I can only, on my own observation -
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is improper to give the contents of a letter from a person unidentified. I have said to this Tribunal before that those letters which come from unidentified persons -- if he is identified, it has not been done in evidence -- come to all of us. I am sure members of the Tribunal get a great many of then. If that is evidence, then the Prosecution should reopen its case, because I have baskets of them. directly and it is even more improper to relate then by oral testimony when the document is not produced. I think this kind of evidence has no probative value and I object to it.
DR. DIX: I think that I may be permitted to say that I would never do anything improper or have done anything improper. I do not intend in any way to submit this very harmless letter to the Tribunal as evidence, but this letter, which reached me through quite regular channels, brought knowledge to Dr. Schacht and myself that there was a plan to murder him. That is why I asked the witness Kal tenbrunner about the matter.
The only reason why I am asking Dr. Schacht is because I expect that he will now inform the Tribunal that there was in fact an order to murder him which existed at that time. That fact, not the letter as such, but that fact, is not quite without significance, because if the regime wants a man killed then that seems at least proof for the fact that they were not particularly well-meaning. That is the only reason why I had asked that this letter should be mentioned, and it is, of course, also at Mr. Justice Jackson's disposal. It is really quite an amusing letter, written by a simple man.
I would never have dreamt of submitting that as a document in evidence. If the Tribunal should have any kind of objections against discussing the matter, something which has been discussed when Kaltenbrunner was examined, then I shall certainly refrain from doing so. In fact, I am quite astonished that the matter should be given so much significance.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that the letter isn't being offered in evidence, and therefore you ought not to refer to it. Well, then, don't refer to it.
DR. DIX: Well, let's drop it. BY DR. DIX:
Q Now, then, at last you find yourself dismissed. What did you do next? the removal of Hitler. Those were my only political activities. Apart from that I was living on my farm.