dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. DIX: At these Party Rallies were the prominent foreigners- you already mentioned that. Was the Diplomatic Corps represented by the chiefs of the diplomatic missions?
SCHACHT: I believe that with the exception of the Soviet Ambassador, in the course of years all other leading diplomats attended the Party Rally, and I must say, in large numbers, with great ostentation and seated in the first rows.
DR. DIX: How did you explain that? The Diplomatic Corps only really takes part in functions of State and this was a purely Party matter? How was this participation explained?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think this is objectionable. If it please the Tribunal, I am in a position to object, because I am not embarrassed by it, if there is any embarrassment, but for this witness to explain the conduct of the ambassadors of other countries seems utterly beyond probative value. His opinion of what the ambassadors were doing, why they attended a Party rally which he was lending his name to, doesn't seem to me has any probative value. The fact that they attended I don't object to, but it seems to me that for him to probe, unless he has some fact-and I want to make clear I don't object to any facts that this witness knows, and I haven't objected to most of his opinions which we have been getting at great length. But I think for him to characterize the action of foreign representatives is going beyond the pale of relevant and material evidence.
SCHACHT: May I make just one remark in reply?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we had better pass on, Dr. Dix.
DR. DIX: Yes, of course. However, I would ask to be given the permission to answer Mr. Justice Jackson briefly, not because I want to be stubborn, but I believe that if I answer now I can avoid later discussions and can save time thereby. I did not ask the defendant for his opinion. Of course Mr. Justice Jackson is right in saying that he is not here to give opinions about the customs of the Diplomatic Corps; but I asked him about a fact: How this participation on the part of the Diplomatic Corps, which is significant, was explained at that time. I consider this relevant, as will be seen more than once in the course of my questioning, and that is why I am saying it now, that throughout his and his political friends' oppositional activities, it is of prime importance to know who gave them moral, spiritual, or any other support, and who did not support them. And thereby, of course, the outward demeanor of the official representatives of foreign countries during the whole period is of tremendous importance, with regard to the capacity of this opposition group to act. One can support such a group; one can be neutral to it, or one can also combat it from abroad. That is the only reason why I put my question, and I deem myself obligated to consider this angle of the problem also in the future.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I don't think Mr. Justice Jackson's objection was to the fact that the diplomatic representatives were there but to comment upon the reasons why they were there. If all you want to prove is the fact that they were there, then I don't think Mr. Justice Jackson was objecting to that. What the defendant was going on to give, was his opinion of why the diplomatic representatives were there.
DR. DIX: I believe I do not need to make a further reply. He has already said that he does not wish to give an explanation, but if Your Lordship will permit me, I shall continue. [Turning to the defendant.] Around that time, you certainly came into contact with prominent foreigners both officially and privately. What position did they take towards the trend of events at the time the National Socialists consolidated their power? And how did their attitude influence your own attitude and activity?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal! I dislike to interrupt with objections, but I can't see how it exonerates or aids this defendant, that prominent foreigners may have been deceived by a regime for which he was furnishing the window dressings with his own name and prestige. Undoubtedly there were foreigners, I am willing to stipulate there were foreigners, like Dahlerus, who were deceived by this set-up of which he was a prominent and slightly respectable part. But it does seem to me that if we are going to go into the attitude of foreigners who are not indicted here or accused that we approach endless questions. I see no relevance in this sort of testimony. The question is here, as I have tried to point out to Dr. Dix, the sole thing that is charged against this defendant is that he participated in the Conspiracy to put this nation into war and to carry out the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity incidental to it. Now, I can't see how the attitude of foreigners either exonerates or helps the Court to decide that question. If it does, of course I don't object to it, but I can't see the importance of it at this stage.
DR. DIX: I do believe that Mr. Justice Jackson...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, Dr. Dix, what exactly was the question that you were asking at that moment? What had it reference to?
DR. DIX: I asked the witness what the attitude was that was taken by prominent foreigners with whom he came into contact at that time, officially and privately during the period that the regime consolidated its power. Did they reject the regime, or were they sympathetic to it? In other words, just how far did these foreigners influence him and his thinking? And may I...
THE PRESIDENT: I think you know, Dr. Dix, that to ask one witness what the attitude of other people is is a very much too general form of question. Attitude-what does the word mean? It is far too general, and I do not understand exactly what you are trying to prove.
DR. DIX: I will make the question more precise. How, Dr. Schacht, through your exchange of thoughts with foreigners, was your personal attitude influenced? How was your attitude and your activity influenced through the attitude of these foreigners? [Turning to the Tribunal.] That is something which Dr. Schacht can testify to alone, because it is of an intimate nature and personal to Schacht. Your Lordship, I want quite openly to state the point to be proved which seems very relevant to the Defense and on which this question is based. I do not wish to conceal anything. I, the Defense, maintain that this oppositional group-about which Gisevius has already spoken, and of which Schacht was a prominent member-that this group not only received no support from abroad, but that foreigners rendered the opposition more difficult. That is not a criticism that is leveled towards foreign governments. There is no doubt that the representatives of these countries took that attitude in good faith and with a sense of duty in the service of their countries. But it was of decisive value for the attitude of these men of this oppositional group what position the foreign countries took to this regime; whether they respected or whether they supported it by precedence given its representatives, socially, as far as possible, or, through caution and reserve, showed their disinclination to it, thereby strengthening this oppositional group. This evidence is of the utmost importance to me in the carrying on of the defense. I have stated it quite openly, and, as much as I can, I will fight for this piece of evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal has considered the argument which you have presented to it and they think that the investigation of these facts is a waste of time and is irrelevant. They will, therefore, ask you to go on with the further examination of the defendant.
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, you supported the rearmament through financing by the Reichsbank. Why did you do that?
SCHACHT: I considered that Germany absolutely had to have political equality with other nations, and I am of the same opinion today; and in order to reach this state, it was necessary that either the general disarmament which had been promised by the Allied powers would come into effect, or that if equal rights were to be obtained Germany would have to rearm on a corresponding scale.
DR. DIX: Was this financial help by the Reichsbank your work alone or was that decreed through the Directorate of the Reichsbank?
SCHACHT: In the Reichsbank, the Leadership Principle was never applied; I rejected the Leadership Principle for the Reichsbank. The Reichsbank was governed by a group of men all of whom had an equal power to vote and if there was a "tie,'' the vote of the chairman was the decisive vote, and beyond that the chairman had no rights in this board.
DR. DIX: You are familiar with the affidavit of the former Reichsbank Director Puhl. Did-I put the question taking into consideration the contents of this affidavit with which the Tribunal is acquainted-Puhl also participate in giving financial help from the Reichsbank for rearmament?
SCHACHT: Herr Puhl participated in all decisions which were made by the Reichsbank Directorate on this question and not once did he oppose the decision reached.
DR. DIX: It is known to you that the Reichsbank's method of financing consisted in the discounting of the so-called mefo bills. The Prosecution have discussed this fact in detail and the aforementioned affidavit signed by Puhl says that this method made it possible to keep the extent of rearmament secret. Is that correct?
SCHACHT: We cannot even talk about keeping the armament a secret. I call your attention to some excerpts from documents presented and submitted by the Prosecution themselves as exhibits. I quote first of all from the affidavit by George Messersmith, dated 30 August 1945, Document Number 2385-PS, where it says on Page 3, Line 19: "Immediately after the Nazis came into power they started a vast rearmament program." And on Page 8 it says: "The huge German armament program which was never a secret...." Thus, Mr. George Messersmith, who was in Berlin at the time, knew about these matters and I am sure, informed his colleagues also. I continue quoting from Document Number EC-461. It is the diary of Ambassador Dodd, where it says, under 19 September 1934, and I quote in English for I just have the English text before me: "When Schacht declared that the Germans are not arming so intensively, I said: Last January and February Germany bought from American aircraft people one million dollars worth of high-class war flying machinery and paid in gold." This is from a conversation between Dodd and myself which took place in September 1934 and he points out that already in January and February 1934 war aircraft... [The proceedings were interrupted by technical difficulties in the lighting system.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would like to know how long you expect to be with your examination-in-chief of the defendant. You have already been nearly a whole day, and the Tribunal think, in view of the directions in the Charter, that the examination of the defendant ought to finish certainly in a day.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, there are two things I do not like to do, to make prophecies which do not come true and to make a promise I cannot keep. May I answer the question by saying that I consider it quite impossible for me to finish today. I am fully aware of the rules of the Charter, but on the other hand I am asking you to consider that the Prosecution have tried to prove the accusations against Schacht by numerous pieces of evidence, directly and indirectly relevant facts, and that it is my duty to deal with these individual pieces of evidence offered by the Prosecution. Please apply strict measures to my questions and if the Tribunal should be of the opinion that there is something irrelevant, then I shall certainly adhere to their ruling. However, I do think that I have not only the right, but also the duty to put any questions which are necessary to refute the evidence submitted by the Prosecution. I shall, therefore, certainly not be able to finish today. I think- I should be extremely grateful if you would not make me prophesy, it may go faster and tomorrow I may finish in the course of the day but it may even take the whole day-I cannot say for certain. In any case, I shall make every effort to put only relevant questions. If the Tribunal should be of the opinion that something is not relevant, I ask to be told so after I have explained my standpoint.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you had better get on at once then, Dr. Dix, and we'll tell you when we think your questions are too long or too irrelevant.
DR. DIX: Now, Dr. Schacht, we were considering the mefo bills, did you consider them as a suitable means of keeping the rearmament secret? Have you anything else to say to that question?
SCHACHT: The mefo bills as such, as far as rearmament was concerned, had of course no connection with the question of secrecy, for the mefo bills were used to pay every supplier. And there were, of course, hundreds and thousands of small and big suppliers all over the country. Apart from that, before they could be taken to the Reichsbank, the mefo bills circulated among the public for at least 3 months and the suppliers who required cash used the mefo bills to discount them in their banks or to have advances made on the strength of them, so that all banks participated in this system. But I should like to add also that all the mefo bills, which were taken up by the Reichsbank, were listed on the bill account of the Reichsbank. Furthermore, I should like to say that the keeping secret of State expenditure-and armament expenditures were State expenditure-was not a matter for the President of the Reichsbank but an affair concerning the Reich Minister of Finance. If the Reich Minister of Finance did not publish the guarantees which he had accepted for the mefo bills, then that was his affair and not mine. I am not responsible for that. The responsibility for that lies with the Reich Minister of Finance.
DR. DIX: The next question, Your Lordship, might arouse doubts as to its relevancy. I personally consider it irrelevant for the verdict in this Trial. However, it has been mentioned by the Prosecution, and for that reason alone I think it is my duty to give Dr. Schacht an opportunity to reply and to justify himself. The Prosecution have represented the view that the financing by means of mefo bills, from the point of view of a solid financial procedure, was also very hazardous. One might adopt the view that that may have been the case or not to make this verdict...
THE PRESIDENT: Ask the question, Dr. Dix, ask the question.
DR. DIX: You have heard what I have in mind.
SCHACHT: It goes without saying that in normal times and under normal economic conditions such means as mefo bills would not have been resorted to. But if there is an emergency, then it has always been customary, and it has always been a policy recommended by all experts, that the issuing bank should furnish cheap money and credits so that the economic system can, in turn, continue to function. Mefo bills, of course, were a thoroughly risky operation, but they were absolutely not risky if they were connected with a reasonable financial procedure and to prove this I would say that if Herr Hitler, after 1937, had used the accruing funds to pay back the mefo bills, as had been intended-the money was available-then this system would have come to its end just as smoothly as I had put it in operation. But Herr Hitler preferred simply to refuse to pay the bills back, and instead to invest the money in further armament. I could not foresee that someone would break his word in such a matter too, a purely business matter.
DR. DIX: But, if the Reich had met the bills and had paid, then means would no doubt have partly been lacking for further rearmaments and the taking up of the bills would therefore have curtailed armament. Is that a correct conclusion?
SCHACHT: That, of course, was the very purpose of my wanting to terminate the procedure. I said if the mefo bills were not met, it would obviously show ill-will; then there would be further rearming, and that cannot be.
DR. DIX: Earlier you briefly dealt with the question of keeping armament secret in another connection. Have you anything to add to that?
SCHACHT: I think in a general manner it must be realized that State expenditures do not come under the jurisdiction of the President of the Reichsbank, and that the expenses and receipts of the State are under the control of the Reich Minister of Finance, and consequently the responsibility lies in his hands and it is his duty to publish the figures. Every bill which the Reichsbank had in its possession was made known every week.
DR. DIX: Is that what you have to add to your answer to the basic question of allegedly keeping the armament program secret?
SCHACHT: Yes.
DR. DIX: You have also already explained on the side why you fundamentally were in favor of rearmament. Have you anything to add to that?
SCHACHT: Yes. A few very important remarks are, of course, to be made on that and since this question concerns the chief accusation against me, I may perhaps deal with it in greater detail. I considered an unarmed Germany in the center of Europe, surrounded by armed nations, as a menace to peace. I want to say that these states were not only armed but that they were, to a very large part, continuing to arm and arming anew. Especially two states which had not existed before, Czechoslovakia and Poland, were beginning to arm, and England, for example, was continuing to rearm, specifically with reference to her naval rearmament in 1935, et cetera . I should like to say quite briefly that I myself was of the opinion that a country which was not armed could not defend itself, and that consequently it would have no voice in the concert of nations. The British Prime Minister Baldwin once said, in 1935: "A country which is not willing to take necessary precautionary measures for its own defense will never have power in this world, neither moral power nor material power." I considered the inequality of status between the countries surrounding Germany and Germany as a permanent moral and material danger to Germany. I further want to point out-and this is not meant to be criticism, but merely a statement of fact-that Germany, after the Treaty of Versailles, was in a state of extreme disorganization and confusion. Conditions in Europe were such that, for example, a latent conflict and controversy existed between Russia and Finland and between Russia and Poland which had considerable parts of Russian territory. There was Russia's latent conflict with Romania which had Bessarabia, and then Romania had a conflict with Bulgaria about the Dobruja and one with Hungary about Siebenbuergen. There were conflicts between Serbia and Hungary, and between Hungary and nearly all her neighbors and between Bulgaria and Greece. In short all of Eastern Europe was in a continuous state of mutual suspicion and conflict of interests.
SCHACHT: In addition, there was the fact that in a number of countries there were most serious internal conflicts. I remind you of the conflict between the Czechs and the Slovaks. I remind you of the civil war conditions in Spain. All that will make it possible to understand that I considered it absolutely essential that in the event of the outbreak of any conflagration in this devil's punch bowl, it was an absolute necessity for Germany to protect at least her neutral attitude. That could not possibly be done with that small army of 100,000 men. For that an adequate army had to be created. Here in prison I accidentally came across an edition of the Daily Mail , dated April 1937, where the conditions in Europe were described, and I beg you to allow me to quote one single sentence. I shall have to quote it in English. It does not represent the views of the Daily Mail ; it only describes conditions in Europe. I quote: "All observers are agreed that there is continual peril of an explosion and that the crazy frontiers of the peace treaties cannot be indefinitely maintained. Here, too, rigorous noninterference should be the King of the British chariot. What vital interests have we in Austria or in Czechoslovakia, or in Romania, or in Lithuania or Poland?" This merely describes the seething state of Europe at that time, and in this overheated boiling pot which was always on the point of exploding, there was Germany, unarmed. I considered that a most serious danger to my country. Now, I shall probably be asked whether I considered Germany threatened in any way. No, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I did not consider Germany threatened directly with an attack, nor was I of the opinion that Russia was likely to attack Germany. However, for example, we had experienced the invasion of the Ruhr in 1923 and these past events and the actual situation made it imperative for me to demand equality for Germany and to support a policy that would attempt to achieve this.
SCHACHT: I assume that we shall deal with the reasons for the carrying out of the rearmament and with the reaction of foreign countries, et cetera .
DR. DIX: What did you know at the time about Germany's efforts to cause the other nations to disarm? Did that have anything to do with your decisions?
SCHACHT: Let me tell you the following: Fundamentally, I was not in favor of rearmament. I only wanted equality for Germany. That German equality could be brought about either by means of disarmament on the part of the other nations or by our own rearmament. I would have preferred, in fact I desired disarmament on the part of the others, which anyway had been promised to us. Consequently I most zealously tried all along for years to prevent a rearmament, if general disarmament could be brought about. The disarmament on the part of the others did not take place, although the Disarmament Committee of the League of Nations had repeatedly declared that Germany had met her obligations regarding disarmament. To all of us who were members of the so-called National Government at the time, and to all Germans who participated in political life, it was a considerable relief that during the first years Hitler, again and again, strove for and suggested general disarmament. Afterwards, of course, it is easy to say that that was a false pretense and a lie on Hitler's part, but that false pretense and that lie would have blown up quite quickly if the countries abroad had shown the slightest inclination to take up these suggestions. I remember quite well what was told Foreign Minister Eden of Great Britain when he visited Germany at the beginning of 1934, because I was present at the social festivities. Quite concrete proposals concerning Germany's obligations in all disarmament questions, in case disarmament on the part of the others was begun and carried out, were made to him. It was promised to Eden that all so-called half-military units, like the SS, the SA, and the Hitler Youth, would be deprived of their military character if only the general disarmament could be accelerated by those means. I could produce a number of quotations regarding these offers to disarm, but since it is the wish of the President not to delay the proceedings, I can forego that.