THE PRESIDENT: I think the Tribunal has always made it clear that the allowance of these documents is a provisional allowance and that when the document is actually offered in evidence, they will then decide the relevancy or its admissibility, rather, and its relevancy.
DR. DIX: No, doubt, no doubt. I merely wanted to point out that we had discussed the question once before. Of course, the Tribunal can turn the document down.
THE PRESIDENT: The allowance is provisional. It is not a question of the Tribunal's reversing its previous decision. The previous decision was merely provisional, and the question of admissibility now comes up for decision.
DR. DIX: Yes, I am perfectly aware of that. It is quite clear to me, Your Lordship, but the objection raised by the representative of the Soviet Prosecution surprises me inasmuch as he, or rather, the representative of the Soviet Delegation, himself referred to that article when he questioned Gisevius. He did not submit it to the Tribunal; that is true, but he put it to the witness and referred to it. there are the slightest objections on the part of the Tribunal to permitting the document, then I shall certainly forego its use. Then if I may, and I think I may, I shall simply ask the witness Schacht whether it is true that he was talking to an American professor of national economy and that they were talking about the possibility of pence, and, of course, I leave it to the Tribunal. I thought it would have been simpler if I submitted the article.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, as you have raised the objection to this document, what have you to say about the point that Dr. Dix makes that you used the document yourself in cross examination?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, we did not use this document in cross-examination of the witness Gisevius. There is a question of dealing with the article which I emphasize particularly.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you say that again? I did not understand you.
GENERAL RUDENKO: I say that we did not use this document during the cross examination of the witness Gisevius. We merely asked in a leading question so that when the document was presented by Dr. Dix, we would have to say something to it and said that the document has no probitive value.
THE PRESIDENT: But did you not put the contents of the document to Gisevius? I do not remember. What I want to know is did you not put the contents of the document?
GENERAL RUDENKO: No, no, we did not put the contents, and we did not talk about the essence of the document. We merely asked a leading question-whether the witness Gisevius knew about the article in the Basle News, published 14 January 1946. That was the question, and the witness answered Yes, that it was known to him.
DR. DIX: May I say one more thing? It seems to me that the Soviet Delegation does not like it very much if the article is submitted as evidence, and I therefore withdraw it. I see no reason, since I have no reasons of duty, why I should not fulfil this wish of the Soviet Delegation. I would like the Tribunal to consider the matter as settled.
May I now put my question?
You had these conversations?
Q Will you please tell us briefly whom the conversation was with?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: First, your Honor, may I interpose an objection? The reason I did not join in the Soviet objection to this document was that I want to know who this economist is. I want to check this thing. There are very peculiar circumstances about this document, and I object to his retailing a conversation with an unknown economist. All I ask is that he identify time and place and person with whom he had his conversation, so that we can do a little verifying of this effort to get something before the Tribunal that did not appear until 1946.
DR. DIX: The question is now being given a significance which does not tally with its comparative irrelevance and insignificance. I shall, therefore, drop that question too. We will say nothing about the conversation with the professor, and I shall leave it to the Prosecution during their cross-examination to have the question answered which Justice Jackson has just mentioned. It is too much of an omelet. particularly anxious to get the American President over to my side, and I think that is all I wanted to say in this connection. I do not think I need waste any more time on it.
Q You meant in your letters Ribbentrop and Goering. Did you, apart from that, refer to the policy of the war in any way at any time? First of all, as far as Hitler was concerned. Hitler. In the summer of 1941 I read a long letter to Hitler, which the witness Lammers has admitted here and that it was known. I do not think he was asked about the contents of this letter here, or he was not allowed to talk about it, and I should like to do it now. "You are at present on the crest of your successful career." This, of course, was after the first Russian successes. "The opponent is thinking that you are stronger than you really are. The alliance with Italy is rather a doubtful one, since Mussolini will fall one day and Italy will drop out. Whether Japan will come to your aid is a debateable point, considering Japan's weakness before America, and I assume that the Japanese will not be so stupid as to make war against America. The output of steel, for instance, despite the fact that there is an equality of population, is about one-tenth of the American steel production, and I do not think, therefore, that Japan mill enter into the war, and I now tell you that, whatever happens, the foreign policy should be reversed by 180 degrees and that peace should be aimed at with every means that you have."
Q Did you, during the war, write Ribbentrop or talk to him?
his State Secretary, von Weizsaecker, had me reproached. He told me not to make any defeatist utterances. That may have been in 1940 or in 1941. At any rate, during one of those two years. I asked him when I made defeatist utterances, and I was told that in France I had talked to a colleague and had given him extensive reasons why Germany could never win this war. That, incidentally, was a conviction that I had before and during the war, and it remained unchanged every minute, even when France fell. to the effect that I, as Minister without portfolio, considered it my duty to state my opinion in its true conception, and in that written letter I maintained the view that Germany's economic power would not suffice to see her through that war. A copy of the letter was received both by Minister Funk and by Minister Ribbentrop through his State Secretary.
DR. DIX: I think, your Lordship, that this would be a suitable moment.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) BY DR. DIX:
Q I spoke before of the 20th of July. Do you recall a statement made by Hitler about you in connection with the 20th of July? 1944. During that occasion, he made derogatory remarks about me to the people around him, and stated that he would be impeded by my negative activities and that it would have been better on his part if he had had me shot before the war. al questions. Within the country, and also abroad, voices could be heard-and also the Prosecution, although your capacities and qualities have been appreciated--also the Prosecution mentioned that one cannot understand how a smart man like you did not recognize the true nature, the intentions of Hitler early enough? I would like you to state your position on that accusation. gentlemen who are judging me best at a time when it still could have been useful. Those are the people who afterwards said that they have known me before what had to happen. I can only state that first, from 1920 on, until the seizure of power by Hitler, I tried to influence the nation and foreign countries in a sense which would have avoided the coming of power of Hitler. I mentioned the relation to an economy of thrift and I was not heeded. I mentioned other measures a gain and again to develop a policy of economy which would give Germany the position to live.
One did not heed me and the world, it seems now, considered me a man of great knowledge.
Hitler came to power because my advice was not heard. The German people got into great economic need and neither...
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, already for two days we are listening to discussions and explanations on the part of Defendant Schacht and it seems to me that those explanations which are being put forth by Defendant Schacht are not the answers to the questions, but are speeches which I think will just prolong the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal is fully aware of the case on behalf of Defendant Schacht They don't want to stop him from putting forth his defense fully, but they would be grateful if you could make your case as short as possible, and if he could make his answers as brief as possible.
DR. DIX: My Lord, I am convinced that until the recess, and maybe even before the recess, I shall be through, but I would like to emphasize that he was accused to have been active in the seizure of power and in that connection, the question arises, how was it so?
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't ruling that this evidence was inadmissible. I was only asking you to get on with it as quickly as you could. BY DR. DIX: with the suggestions of the Soviet Prosecutor.
A. As short as possible, I will not deal details; I only state that on account of the collapse of 1918 and the impossible conditions of the Versailles Treaty, Germany came into a great depression that the Democratic Parties which had the regime in their hands at that time, had not been able to bring about an improvement of conditions; that other nations had not recognized and realized what policies they should have towards Germany. I do not reproach any one, I just state it, and that consequently, out of that depression, Hitler achieved such a majority in the Reichstag as it had not happened since the creation of the Reichstag. didn't tell me at that time but they only tell me now, I ask them what they would have done. I have stated that I was against the military regime; that I wanted to avoid a civil war and that in keeping with democratic principles, I saw only the one possibility that the man should lead the government who had achieved that power of the majority. include myself and not with the intention to sponsor that man in his extremist ideas, but to act as a break; and, too, if possible, lead his policies into regulated forms.
Q. Then, at a later date, when you recognized the dangers, when you yourself suffered under the impossible conditions of terror -- and there the question is admissible, I am sure -- why did you not leave the country? Why didn't you emigrate?
A. Had it been only my personal fate, nothing would have been simpler than that, especially since we have heard before that I would have been offered that possibility, but it was not only concerning myself who, since 1923, had worked in the interests of the public -- it was about the existence of my country, of my nation, and I have never seen it happen in history that emigrants and, of course, I speak of those emigrants who go on their own free will, not those that have been expelled -- I have never seen that emigrants could do any good to their nation. It was not the case in 1792, at the time of the French Revolution; it was not the case of 1917 and the Russian Revolution, and it was not the case at the occasion of the National Socialist revolution which we witnessed.
To sit in a secure port abroad and to write articles -
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, we don't want a historical lecture, do we?
DR. DIX: I believe we can stop here, but he only wanted to motivate why he did not emigrate. You have been understood.
BY DR. DIX:
Q. In the course of the proceedings, either in a letter or in a form -I don't know which -- mention was made about your thoughts, whether in the case of yourself one would have sacrificed himself, and if that would have served the German nation?
A. I believe that you have referred to a German quotation which has been mentioned by the American prosecutor or one of the representatives of the American prosecution, where I spoke about the silence of death in one of my notes. If I myself would have sacrificed myself, it would not have served any good because the conditions would never have become known of my sacrifice. nobody would have known "is he still alive or isn't he" or I would have been the victim of an intended coincidental accident and that possibility would not have existed either. Martyrs can only be effective if the circumstance of their death becomes known to the public.
DR. DIX: May I now call for the attention of the Tribunal? Yesterday, a question was refused me concerning the attitude of the diplomatic corps and the influence there of on men like Schacht. The question which I want to nut now is not the same question otherwise I, of course, would not put it.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection that I made was to the use of the word attitude because I don't see how witnesses can give? evidence about the attitude of a coprs. I think I said especially that the fact that the diplomatic corps were present at the Party rally might be given in evidence, but I said that the word "attitude" was far too general. What is it you want to put now?
DR. DIX: Yesterday, the question had been refused, which I stated thus: "What was the influence on Schacht by the collective attitude of the diplomatic coprs?" That question was refused and that is all about that; but, first, I should like to clarify it because I do not want to create the impression as if I want to smuggle a question into this proceedings, which may cause the same objections.
On the other hand, it is essential for my defense, my line of defense, to show that people with judgment from abroad, had had the same attitude toward the regime as Schacht and those were men who are beyond doubt, beyond suspicion, particularly beyond suspicion of their trying to create or prepare for aggressive wars; and, on the other hand, I want to show that the work of these people in the opposition was not only not sponsored by abroad but made more difficult, and that is important for me.
But, please, Mr. Schacht, do not answer before I have received the answer of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: State exactly what the question is?
DR. DIX: Yes, I want to come to it now. I, according to my notes, am concerning myself with the various corresponding successes that the Nazi regime had abroad. I wanted to nut up to him various acts of recognition, official visits, and I wanted to ask him what the influence was of all these examples of recognition on the work of that group of conspirators, but since that question is very similar to the one that has been rejected -- and I should like to make the objection myself rather than to have them made -- I wanted to submit the question first to the Tribunal and find out whether it is admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the question being: "What effect did the recognition of the Nazi regime from abroad have upon the group of conspirators with whom the defendant Schacht was in contact?" That is the question, is it not?
DR. DIX: Yes.
DR. DIX: If "anerkennung" is translated correctly as "honoring them" not in the sense of recognition as usually understood in diplomatic language but as honoring -- it is a difficulty in translation and I want to make sure that there will be no misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
DR. DIX: And may I put to him, first, the individual official visits which I have noted, so that he can answer the question? May I do that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may; actual visits?
DR. DIX: Yes. The list will not be complete. BY DR. DIX"
Q. I remind you that in 1939, the delegate of the Labor Party, Alan Hartwood -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you ought to put the question in the general way in which I put it to you and not go into the details of each visit or the details of a number of visits.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If your Honor please, I want to object to it as being generalities because it already appears that the United States did not participate in this and I tried to keep European politics out of this case, and this is the entering wedge. Now, I don't want to get into this sort of thing. I think it is entirely irrelevant that some foreigners, deceived by the appearance which the defendant Schacht was assisting in putting up, didn't start a war earlier. This thing is entirely irrelevant. The United States has desired to keep this sort of thing out of this case because it is endless if we go into it. It seems to me, if Mr. Schacht wants to put the responsibility for his conduct on some foreigner, that foreigner should be named. He has already said that the United States representatives, Mr. Messersmith and Mr. Dodd, had no part in it because they were always against then. Now, it gets into a situation here which seems to me impossible before this Tribunal and I cannot understand how it constitutes any defense for mitigation for Schacht to show that the foreign powers maintained intercourse with Germany even at a period of its degeneration.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question is relevant but should be put without detail.
DR. DIX: I will put the question without detail, and I would like to say that of course I could not name myself alongside America, but it is my intention also to keep political matters out of this. It is not a matter of foreign politics that I want to ask about, so it will be only the one question. BY DR. DIX: regime, from abroad, have on the work of your group of conspirators? numerous statesmen from almost all other nations came to Berlin to visit Hitler, including some crowned heads. From America, for instance, Under Secretary of State Phillips was there.
A I only said that because there was mention of names. It is not limited to Europe. I do not intend to make any political explanations, but I only say that so many visits were made which meant recognition for Hitler, not only recognition but the honoring of Hitler, that this man appeared a great man in the eyes of the German people. Amanulla, was the first foreigner who visited the Social Democratic Government in Berlin, and there was a great deal of excitement that for the first time now after a long time, a great man from another country came to us. But here, in the case of Hitler, from 1935 on there was one visit after another, and Hitler went from one foreign political success to the other, which made enlightenment among the German people extremely difficult and made it impossible to work in the service of that enlightenment within the German nation. who said that the moment had to come when the servants of Hitler would have to refuse to follow him. We shall try to accept that way of thinking, and I ask you: Are you of the opinion that you yourself accepted that view?
A I do not only accept it, but I approve of it. From the very moment when I recognized what a harmful individual Hitler was, what a threat to world peace, I separated myself from him in every way, not only secretly, but publicly and personally. possible, after coming to the correct understanding, to try to save humanity from the disaster of this war, or to alleviate the consequences? that sense than I did. I warned against excessive armament. My economic policies tried to impede, and, if you want to say so, sabotage actual armament. I resigned from the Ministry against the will of Hitler; I protested against all perpetrations of the Party, with Hitler and publicly; I continuously warned people abroad and informed them; I attempted to influence the policy of other nations with respect to the colonial question, and to achieve a more peaceful atmosphere.
DR. DIX: Yes.
THE WITNESS: I ask to be permitted one sentence: I finally tried to remove Hitler.
DR. DIX: Gentlement, I am now at the end of my presentation, and I have only one request, During the last few days, I have received a large number of letters from people who know Schacht, among them also affidavits. I will examine them, and if I should be of the opinion that one or the other may be relevant, then I will get in touch with the Prosecution and discuss with them whether they have any objection to having them translated so that then we can approach the Tribunal in order to submit one document or another, if necessary, not to have it read, just to have it put in evidence.
May I request that this be granted to me. Then, at the end of my entire presentation, I will briefly submit my documents, the rest of my documents. This is only a part of my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN (Counsel for defendant von Neurath): I have only a few questions to Dr. Schacht. BY DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN:
Q Since when have you known Mr. von Neurath, Dr. Schacht?
impression? considered it a very evil sign for the departure from an attempted policy of understanding.
DR. VON. LEUDINGHAUSEN: I have no more questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Do other defendant's counsel want to ask questions?
Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I imagine it may save time, Your Honor, if we could take a recess at this time. It is a little early, I know, but it will take some time to arrange our material.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly.
(A recess was taken.)
MR JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal. BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON:
Q. Dr. Schacht, according to the transcipt of the testimony, at page 8698, you said that in 1938 you told a certain lade when you were dining, "My deer lady, we have fallen into the hands of criminals. How could I ever have suspected that!" Do you recall that testimony?
A. It wasn't I who gave that testimony; it came from an affidavit submitted by my Defense Counsel here, but it is correct.
Q. I am sure you want to help the Tribunal by saying who they were.
A. Hitler and his cooperators.
Q. Well, you were there; you know who the cooperators were. I ask you to name all that you put in that category of criminals with Hitler. Hitler is de*
A. Mr. Justice, it is very hard for me to answer that question completely because I do not know who was in that conspiracy, around Hitler. The Defendant Goering has told us here that he counts himself amongst that group, and there was Bormann, but who else was contained in that narrow circle of confidencemen -- that is something I don't know.
Q. You have only named three men as criminals, two of whom are dead and one of whom you say admitted -
A. I may add one more, if you let me. I assume that the Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop, too, must also have been in the picture regarding Hitler's pla I must assume that, but of course, can't prove it.
Q. Whom else did you include when you were talking to the lady?
A. On that evening I didn't mention any names.
Q. But whom did you have in mind? You surely were not making charges against your own people, who were in charge of your own government, without having definite names in mind.
A. I have taken the liberty of mentioning the names to you.
Q. Are those all?
A. I don't know it, but I assume there must have been more. I would add without hesitation, Heydrich. But I can't know with whom Hitler dealt. I repeat, I would like to see them die some other way, but there it is.
Q. Are those the only people you included?
A. I have no evidence to the effect that anyone else was in amongst those conspirators and I can't say about anybody that this or that proof exists, that he must have been amongst them.
Q. Now, Dr. Schacht, at the time the Nazis seized power you had a worldwide acquaintance and very great standing as a leading banker in Germany and in the world, did you not?
A. I don't know whether that is so, but if it is your own opinion I shan't contradict you.
Q Well, at first you would admit that?
A Yes, I think so; I shan't contradict you. the German people in support of the Nazi regime, alongside of characters such as Streicher and Bormann.
A Mr. Justice, I have taken the liberty of explaining here in this court room that until July, 1932, I did not in any way make public propaganda for Hitler or the Party and that, to the contrary, I warned the people against him in America. I always said that the name Bormann was, of course, unknown to me at the time, and Streicher's paper, "Der Sturmer," was just as revolting to me before that time as afterward. I didn't think I had anything in common with Mr. Streicher.
Q I didn't cither, but that is why I wondered about your appearing with him publicly after the Nazi machine was consolidated.
A (Something not heard.)
Q I didn't get the answer.
A What did I do? Bormann in support of the Nazi program after the seizure of power.
A I shouldn't think so. I never was seen together with Mr. Streicher or Mr. Bormann -- certainly not at that time. It is quite possible he attended the same Party rallies I attended or that I sat next to him, but at any rate in 1933 I was never in any way publicly seen with Streicher or Bormann. marked No. 10. Yuo have no difficulty recognizing yourself in that, do you?
Q And on the right sits Bormann?
Q And next to him the Minister of Labor?
Q And on the other side of you is Hitler?
Q And beyond him, Streicher?
A I can't recognize him; I don't know whether it is Streicher or not, but I don't suppose it matters.
MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I will offer the photograph in evidence. Perhaps the identification will be sufficient.
Q Frick is also in the picture?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: This becomes Exhibit 829.
THE PRESIDENT: Justice Jackson, what is the date of that Photograph?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There is no date given on the photographs.
Perhaps the witness can tell us.
A Mr. Justice, you said that in 1933 I had shown myself publicly together with Streicher and Bormann as a representative of the National Socialist Party, and I should like to know, therefore, where this picture was taken and when. I can't verify that.
Q I asked you. Do you deny this is a photograph -
A No, no, no. By no means. I am merely asking which period it originates from. I think this does not apply to 1933 or 1934.
Q When was it, if you want to tell us?
A I don't know; I can't tell you. Nos. 3 and 4. No. 3 shows you marching with Dr. Robert Ley among others. the Nazi salute.
A Yes, that's right. Germany?
Q And those are correct photographs, are they not?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I offer them in evidence.
Q I will show you photographs marked Nos. 1 and 2 and 6 -- and 7. Now let us look at No. 1. Do you recall where that was taken? Yes. I think No. 1 is a picture from the Reich Chancellery, if I am not mistaken.
Q Among the persons appearing in No. 1 is Frick?
others, and Hitler in the middle.
Q von Neurath?
A Neurath, yes; I think he is immediately on Hitler's right, in the background.
Q Goebbels? with only a part of his body showing.
A Who is that?
A I beg your pardon. perhaps I have a different picture. I beg your pardon. I was looking at No. 2. on No. 2 I see from left to right, Popitz, Rust, Goering, Neurath, Hitler, Blomberg, Schacht, Guertner, Krosigk, Elz von Ruebenach, and then at the very back on the right, Funk.
Q And let's take No. 7. Whom do you identify as your company in that photograph?
A On the extreme left, my late wife; then the vicepresident of the Reichsbank, Reise; and Hitler; and myself. well, I don't know who he is. foundation of the new Reichsbank building was laid. It was in 1934. And directly behind me, on the right, is Blomberg.
Q And No. 6?
A Just a minute. That is the picture when I walked alongside Hitler, is that right? That is Hitler's march, in my company, on the occasion of the laying of the foundation of the new Reichsbank building. Behind me, or rather behind Hitler, you can see Geheimrat Vocke, who is to appear as a witness here tomorrow, and several other gentlemen from the directors of the Reichsbank.