A No. Just a minute. Please, will you let me answer. I do not wish to be accused of anything without replying. receive it later. That letter was replaced by a conversation, a personal conversation. The subject of that personal conversation is represented in the letter of May 30, which we read first and which I have received. You have just stated that I had promised Krupp von Bohlen that I would talk to Doctor Fischer and Doctor Mosler, and it doesn't say so in that letter. conversation? That is what I am trying to ask you.
AAt any rate, I haven't promised to talk to the gentleman.
Q Is there anything more you want to say? statements against the terror policy of the regime, and in evidence you quoted from your Koenigsberg speech. where I got interested in it.
A Yes, that is true, isn't it (laughing)? Let me quote the part you quoted, because it is important.
A (In English) Quote the whole thing.
Q Yes. This is what you quoted:
"Those are the people who heroically smear window panes in the middle of the night, 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."
That is what you quoted?
Q Now let us go on:
"The goal at which these people aim at is generally correct and good. There is no place in the Third Reich for secret societies, regardless how harmless they are. The priest and preachers" -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the matter with the translation? Isn't it coming through?
THE INTERPRETER: I think the German isn't, My Lord. BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Schacht:
"The goal at which these people aim at is generally correct and good. There is no place in the Third Reich for secret societies, regardless how harmless they are. The priest and preachers should take care of the wouls, and not meddle in politics. The Jew must realize that their influence is gone for all times."
That was also a part of that speech, was it not?
Q And you pointed out in that speech that on the "Jewish problem", as you called it, legislation is being prepared and must be awaited?
Q You assured them so, didn't you? versation with Hitler. way?
A Not the laws which arrived. I always urged Hitler that legal protection should be given to the Jews and that is the wish I wanted to see through. I assumed it would come through, instead of which came the Racial Laws of November of September 1933.
Q I have quoted from U.S. Exhibit No. 832, which is Document EC 433, and you say the laws you were forecasting and promising were laws for the protection of the Jews?
to the Tribunal for not becoming a Party member?
Q Do you recall that?
Q Now isn't it a fact that you have told the United States Prosecution Staff that you asked Hitler whether to join the Party, and that to your great relief Hitler told you not to?
A Yes. I wanted to ascertain that before I participated in his actions in any way or cooperated with him -- whether he demanded that from me, namely, that I should become a member of the Party. He said "No", and I was most relieved,
Q So you remained out of the Party with Hitler's consent and approval?
A Yes, of course. I think that is just another reason which will prove I have never been a member of the Party.
Q But you didn't mention that to the Tribunal when you were giving your reasons for setting out that Hitler had given permission? the greatest honor that could be conferred by the Third Reich, did you not?
Q And while you didn't wear it in your daily life, you did wear it on official occasions, you stated, did you not?
A Yes. It allowed one great comforts during railroad journeys and rides in autobusses. the Nasi Party?
A No. Yes I beg your pardon; from 1937 to 1942.
Q Didn't you say in an interrogation that it was from 1933 to 1942?
A No, that is an error. From 1937, after I had received the Swastika. That is a misunderstanding, but after I had received it I said to myself,"It is decent that I will give them a thousand marks, and that is that." office of one kind or another under this regime, did you not?
time, Hitler deceived you and all the time you deceived Hitler.
Q I have misunderstood you?
A I think that in the first years, at least I didn't deceive Hitler. I not only believe so, I knew it. I only started deceiving him beginning in 1938. Until then, I was always telling him my honest opinion. I didn't cheat him at all; the contrary. government in order to put brakes on his program? Did you tell him that?
A Oh, no. I should hardly do A thing like that. He wouldn't have let me in then. But I didn't deceive him about that. his program by sabotage?
A I didn't say that I wanted to defeat his program. I said that I wanted to direct it into orderly channels.
Q Well, you have said that you wanted to put brakes on it. You used that expression.
Q To slow it down?
Q And he wanted to speed it up, isn't that right? for the purpose of slowing down his rearmament program, did you?
A I didn't have to tell him what I was thinking. I wasn't deceiving him. I wasn't telling anything wrong. I would hardly tell him what I was thinking inside me. He didn't tell me either, and you don't tell your political opponents either, but I never deceived him except after 1938.
Q I am not asking you about a political opponent. I am asking you about the man in whose government you entered and became a part.
Q You don't tell your opponents, but is it customary in Germany that members of the government enter for the purpose of defeating the head of the government's program?
A I have just now told you that the word "defeat" is wrong. I did not intend to defeat him. I intended to brake, slow down, and that is indeed the custom, because every coalition government does that. If you enter into a coalition, then that means that you must discuss certain matters with your neighboring part and get an agreement about it, and certain matters which the other one wants must be slowed down by your influence. That isn't defeat; that is an attempt at a compromise solution.
Q You claim you entered as a coalition? as sabotaging his rearmament program, did you not?
A Yes, yes I did so, shall we say, after 1936. But then he noticed that. That wasn't defeat. of the war by Germany.
A That is a most peculiar question. Please forgive me if I say so, and please forgive me if I say I do not assume part of the responsibility because I don't bear the responsibility for the war's being started, so I can't assume any responsibility that it was lost. I didn't want the war. first arise? examination that I don't believe you want me to repeat it again.
Q Did that occur -- I'll put it in the terms of your interrogation, since your interrogation is a little clearer.
"In 1934" -- so your interrogation runs -- "he killed or let be killed lots of people without then having any juristical substance, and a few days after, in the Reichstag, he said 'He was the highest judge in Germany.' He was certainly not, and for the first time I was shaken by his conception. It seemed to me absolutely immoral and unhuman."
Is that correct? before, exactly the same.
Q Well, I want to fix these dates, Dr. Schacht. You see, your purpose in this trial and mine aren't exactly the same. Gestapo from Gisevius in 1934 or '35 as he testified, di you not?
A No, he did not say that. He said that he knew about these matters. He didn't tell me everything, but I said earlier today, this morning, that I admit that certain matters were communicated to me by him, and that I could and did draw my conclusions from that. At the beginning of May '35 I had already discussed that matter with Hitler.
A Just one moment. May I go in the right order. The Reichstag Fire was something that I was told years later. It was done by the late Count Helldorf who has been mentioned by Gisevius.
Q You mean Gisevius never told you about that?
A I think I heard it from Helldorf. I may have heard it from Gisevius but I think it was Helldorf. But at any rate, it was after '35 that I heard about it. Until then, I didn't think it was possible.
Q You never doubted Gisevius' word When he told you in 1934 or '35 as he testified, did you?
A Just a moment. He told me either in '34 or '35, but not '34 and '35, and when he did tell me, well if Gisevius said so, I assume that it is true. and the destruction of the labor unions, wasn't it?
A The destruction of the labor unions took place as early as May '33.
Q You knew all about that, didn't you?
A I didn't know all about it, but it became known to me. I knew just that, what every other German know about it, and what the labor unions knew themselves. contributions by yourself and other industrialists to the Nazi Party, wasn't it?
A Oh, no; oh, no. That was never mentioned. a thing to industry as the destruction of the labor unions was never mentioned in your conferences?
A I don't know about it. Please will you remind me of anything in particular. into concentration camps.
A I heard about it. Just a minute. Just who went to concentration camps, that I don't know. Regarding the confiscation of the property, I was informed because that was publicly announced. But as far as industrial meetings are concerned, if I understand you correctly, that is something I don't know. didn't you? know about the persecution of the Jews, how I acted in connection with the persecution of the Jews, and that as long as I was minister I did everything to prevent these things. more detail about it, Dr. Schacht. Did you not testify as follows, on your interrogation on the 17th of October 1945:
"The National Socialists, as I took it from the program, intended not to have such a great percentage of Jews in the Governmental and cultural positions of Germany, with which I agreed."
Q "Question: Well now, you had read Mein Kampf, had you not?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: And you know the views of Hitler oh the Jewish question, did you not?
"Answer: Yes."
You so testified, did you not?
Q "Well now, during your time as Reichsminister, statutes were passed, were they not, prohibiting all Jewish lawyers, for example, from practicing in the courts?
"Answer: Yes, that is what I said.
"Question: Did you agree with that?
"Answer: Yes."
Did you say that?
Q And you did agree?
Q Yes. And you also agreed with the principle of excluding all Jews from civil service positions, did you not?
A No. I want to emphasize in this connection -
A May I finish? influence in the legal government circles, or rather, I always said that I did not consider that the dominating influence was favourable and was neither in the interest of Germany nor the German people, because that was a Christian state and based on Christian conceptions, nor was it in the interest of the Jews since it would increase animosity against the Jews, or rather, awaken it. figures in this connection, not actually based on the population figures, but perhaps on a certain percentage.
Q Well, let's go on with the interrogation. The interrogations are always so much briefer than the answers made in court where the press is present, if I may say so.
Did you not give these answers:
"Question: Now, with respect to civil service, there was this aryanization clause that was put in. Did you agree with that legislation?
"Answer: With the same limitation.
"Question: Now, did you ever express yourself in the Cabinet or clsewhere to the point that you wanted these restrictions put in, restrictions you have been talking about?
"Answer: I don't think so; useless to do it.
"Question: You say 'useless todo it'?
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: I thought you said at one time or another that the reason you stayed in is because you thought you might have some influence on policy.
"Answer: Yes.
"Question: You didn't consider this as important enough a matter to take a position on it?
"Answer: Not important enough matter to break."
A To break?
A That's right.
Q Then, you were asked this:
"You certainly signed a law with respect to the prohibition against Jews receiving licenses to deal in foreign currencies."
Do you remember that?
Q "Answer: Yes, it may be.
"Question: You were in favor of that?
"Answer: I don't remember what the details were of "Question:
Well, it is not a matter of details. The "Answer:
Yes. " You said that?
Q You were in favor of that legislation, or were you not?
A Is that the question now?
Q You were in favor of it. You were not when you were interrogated. you said "I wasn't in favor, but I had to sign it.
"Question: Well, you were the only one who signed it.
You were the Reich Minister of Economics."
Q "Question: And, obviously, it was a bill which was put in by your Ministry, was it not?
"Answer: Yes."
Is that correct?
A Yes, I assume so; You see, in these matters there were differences, fine differences in principle. I developed my policy before as to what extent these individual laws went. That is a question of policy or politics, you con say this or that today. hibiting all Jews from being admitted to examinations for public economic advisors for cooperatives, for example.
A Yes, possibly. I don't remember. Probably it is right.
on German subjects who transferred German property abroad or left German property abroad. and most seriously, the Jews who were moving abroad.
A I hope that the Jews weren't deceiving or cheating any more then the Christians. I hope the Jews didn't cheat any more than the Christians. ring German property abroad was you idea of a just law?
A I don't understand. My idea? signature on it. recited:
"Well, now, was there a matter of conscience involved, or was there not?"
And you answered: "To some extent, yes, but not important enough to risk a break."
Q And the question: "Yes. In other words, you had quite another objective which was more important."
A That's right;
Q "Well what was that objective, Dr. Schacht?" I am still reading. It saves time. A Oh, pardon me;
Q "Answer: Well, the objective was to stay in power and to help carry this through in an ordinary and reasonable way.
"Question: That is to say, the restoration of the German economy.
"Answer: Quite.
"Question: And the completion of the armament program.
"Answer: The completion of the International equality, political equality of Germany.
"Question: By means of armament, as you yourself have said.
"Answer: Also by means of armament."
Q Yes. Soothe armament question was so important that you didn't want to risk any break about the Jews.
Q Well, now, I just asked you "by means of armament, as you yourself hove said."
AAnd I say, also by means of armament. That is one of the means. wasn't it?
A No, it wasn't. There were other ones.
Now, isn't it a fact that you also approved the law dismissing all Jewish officials and notaries public? giving your motives, did you not, saying this:
"The economic and illegal treatment of the Jews, the anti-Church movement in certain Party Organizations, and the lawlessness which centers in the Gestapo, create an injury to our rearmament task, which could be considerably lessened through the application of more respectable methods, without abandonment of the goals in the least."
You wrote that, did you not?
A Yes. I quoted it myself yesterday. three separate offices, did you not?
A Yes. I don't know which ones you mean, but please go ahead. Please assume so.
Q I will list them. In the first place, you were Plenipotentiary for War.
Q You were president of the Reichsbank. That was the financial end of it. control with the Minister for the general economic situation.
A Yes. They weren't controls so general that I can confirm your statement just like that, but I was Minister of Economy. War. You have testified that this position was created for two purposes:
(a) Preparation for war. (b) Control of the economy in the event of want.
Is that correct? happen, and the direction of economy in the event of the outbreak of war having taken place, that preliminary period and the later period during war. did you not:
''As the Chief of Staff, worries in advance about mobilization from the military point of views -- so you were concerned with it from the economic point of view. the War Ministry, was it not?
of war were, first, the Minister of War and the Chief of the General Staff of the Wehrmacht; and, secondly, on an equal footing, Dr. Schacht, as Plenipotentiary for Economics. Is that correct?
Q And in January of 1937 you wrote this, did you not?
"I am engaged in the preparation of the war economy, according to the principle that our economic war organization must be so organized in time of peace that the war economy can be directly diverted in case of emergency from this peace time organization, and has not to be duly created at the outbreak of war."
Q And who was your Deputy in that office? Wolthardt? Economy, let's turn to your functions as President of the Reichsbank. the principal task of the German policy in 1935, did you not? for finding financial and economic means for doing that thing. developing the armament industry of Germany.
A Oh, no; no, in no way.
"Question: Now, in connection with this development" -- I am referring to your interrogation of the 16th of October, 1945, US Exhibit 636.
"Now in connection with this development of the armament industry, you charged yourself as the financial and economic administrator of it." Nodding your head.
A What?
Q "You charged yourself" -- I will ask the whole question so you will get it.
Q "Now, in connection with this development of the armament industry, you charged yourself as the financial and economic administrator of it." The record says that you nodded your head.
The next question was: "And in that connection you took various steps. Would you be good enough to describe for us the larger steps which you took with reference to this goal of rearmament, first, internally, and, secondly, with respect to foreign nations?"
"Answer: Internally I tried to collect every money available for financing the MEFO bills. Externally I tried to maintain foreign commerce as much aspossible."
Did you make those answers, and are they correct? foreign exchange to permit the imports of raw materials, not manufactured, which were required for the rearmament program. Is that not correct?
A That is the question that was put to me. Now comes the answer. Please, will you look at the answer?
Q What is your answer now?
Q Not the only aim?
Q But that was the primary aim, was it not?
Q All right, what was the other aim? sufficient food for Germany/
Q What was the dominant aim? dustry.
you as to your aim. I refer to Document 1168-PS of May 3, 1935.
Q Entitled "Financing of Armament", Exhibit 37.
"The following comments are based on the assumption that the accomplishment of the armament program in regard to speed and extent is the task of German Policy, and that therefore everything else must be subordinated to this aim, although the reaching of this main goal must not be imperiled by neglecting other questions."
Did you write that?
A Not only did I write it, but I handed it to Hitler personally. It is one of twin documents, one of which has already been submitted as an exhibit by the Prosecition; it has been treated quite in detail by the Prosecution. I did not receive the second document. lections and Party money, which was dram from all sources of the German Reich, should be stopped, because the difficulty for me was to get the money to finance rearament and the cashing of kefo bills It was extremely difficult. matter of course that this was being done in the interests of rearmament, and I told him that this was done -
A Please let me finish; please don't interupt me, I want to finish. something like that, that would not have pleased him. However, if I told him it must be done because otherwise we couldn't rearm, then that was the very point wher I could touch Hitler, and that is why I said so, as I admitted during the examination by my solicitor.
Q And you didn't call that misleading him?
A I wouldn't call it "misleading"; I would call it "leading". at least. don't tell them the truth than if you tell them the truth.
Q I am very glad to have that frank statement of your philosophy, Dr. Schacht. I am greatly indebted to you. blocked foreign accounts, and Mefo bills was one of your principal devices for financing was it not?
Q Now, I don't care about the details of Mefo bills, but I would like to ask you this. Isn't it correct, as you testified on the inquiry of the 16th of October, 194 --United States Exhibit 636--as follows?
"Actually, as a matter of fact, let me ask you this. At the time when you started the Mefo bills, for example, there were no ready means available for financing the the rearmament?
Q That is to say, through normal budget finance methods? was required by the armament program.
Q And you found a way? Reichsbank to lend, by a subterfuge, to the Government what it normally or legally could not do?
Q Is that true?
Q The following questions were then asked:
"I understand that basically what was built up in Germany in the way of an armaments industry, a domestic economy that was sound, and a Wehrmacht, the efforts that you put in from 1934 to the spring of 1939, when Mefo financing stopped, were responsible in large part for the sucess of the whole program.
A I don't know whether they were responsible for it, but I helped a great deal to achieve that"
Q And you were asked as follows, on the 17th of October 1945:
"In other words, in effect you are not taking the position that you are not a largely responsible for the rearming of the German Army.
A I wouldn't say proud, but satisfied"
Q Is that still your position?
A To that I should like to say this. The question of Mefo bills is quite certainly a system of financing which normally would never have happened. During my examination by my solisitor I have since made a statement on the subject. But, on the other hand, I can say that this question was dealt with by all legal experts in the Reichsbank and by that means of this subterfuge, as you put it, means were found, which was legally possible.
Q No, I didn't put it; you put it.
AAll right, I beg your pardon; what you quoted as being my answer. I beg we your pardon.
Q So the matter was legally investigated, and we told ourselves, "That is the way we can work it." only I wish that Hitler had used it differently.
Q Well, on your 60th birthday Minister of War Blomberg said that, "Without your help, my dear Mr. Schacht, none of this armament could have taken place," did he not?
A Yes, those are the sort of polite words one says on such occasions. But there is quite a bit of truth in it too; I have never denied it. slow up, as I understand it, you made that suggestion without knowing, what the armament was.
Q The only thing you were judging by was financial conditions, was it not?
Q Well, what was it? General Thomas always talked to me about these things. However, what General von Blomberg thought is something which I don't remember, and I don't remember that he has given me detailed information. But, of course, generally I was informed regarding the approximate progress made by rearmament, and that was the reason why I said "mark time". My opinions were strengthened because of the general conditions.
Q Well now, let's see what reasons you gave in Exhibit EC-286. That is US-833.
"I am therefore of the opinion that we should promote our export with all resources by a temporary"--and 1 emphasize the word "temporary" -decrease of armament."