dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. DIX: Yes. In general I have put brief questions, Your Lordship. I only said this now, because I would like to follow the procedure approved, I believe, by the High Tribunal, of dealing with part of the evidence at this stage; and so I would like to bring up the reliability of Dodd's Diary. That is Document Schacht-43 in my document book; German text, Page 194; English text, Page 202. Here we are concerned with the correspondence between the publisher of Dodd's diary and Sir Nevile Henderson, which deals with several misstatements in the diary. I will dispense with the rather long letter by Sir Nevile Henderson-there are five folio pages-and will cite just a few sentences. On Page 196 of the German text, Sir Nevile Henderson writes: "Take, for instance, the first statement attributed to me about Neurath. It is entirely impossible, that I, in front of Hitler . . ." and so on and so forth. Then on the same page, in the middle of the page, next paragraph: "And it is the same with the general discussion. It is quite inconceivable that I should have spoken, as there recorded, about Bismarck and the annexation of Czechoslovakia and other countries." And on the same page, a little further down, next to the last paragraph, it says: "Nor could I possibly have said that 'Germany must dominate the Danube-Balkan zone.'" And on the next page, second paragraph: "The remark attributed to me that England and Germany 'must control the world' is pure balderdash and hardly fits in with the preceding sentence about the United States." Now, there are other similar passages on this and the following page, but I do not believe it necessary for me to quote them. I request the High Tribunal to take official notice of this document in its entirety, and I would like to submit it as such. [Turning to the defendant.] Dr. Schacht, a little while ago you mentioned a warning on the part of Ambassador Dodd with regard to a danger which was threatening you. Was it an attack on your life?
SCHACHT: At that time-and I only heard about this in January after Mr. Dodd told me-I was informed that the SS was planning an attack on my person. The intent was, as the technical expression then had it, "to remove" me. Something like that must have been in the air; otherwise, a foreign ambassador and the circles close to me would not have known about it.
DR. DIX: Just a little while ago you set forth how your policy rejected the use of arms in bringing about equality of German rights and means of livelihood. Did you try to do anything in a practical way to further your policy of peaceful agreement with foreign countries, for example, when you were President of the bank?
SCHACHT: My entire work as President of the Reichsbank was primarily based on the principle of working with the banks in foreign countries as harmoniously as possible, of pursuing a policy of mutual assistance and support. Secondly, I tried to enter into personal, friendly relations with the directors of all these banks in the hope of meeting understanding for German problems, and thus of contributing to a solution by way of co-operation and mutual solution of these difficult problems which had arisen in Central Europe. The word "co-operation" (Zusammenarbeit) was the leitmotif of our circle.
DR. DIX: To turn from the directors; of the banks, what about your foreign creditors?
SCHACHT: As I already said a little while ago, from the start I was in disfavor with all the money makers, those people who had profited from German loans in foreign countries for I was against Germany's being involved in debts abroad, and I took my stand very firmly on this point. Then later, after the misfortune which I had always predicted actually did come to pass, after the financial crash in the year 1931, these self-same financiers and money men blamed me for the fact that the interest on their money was no longer being transferred to them. Therefore in those circles I did not gain any friends, but among serious bankers and large banking institutions which were interested in constant and regulated business with Germany, I believe I made no enemies, because all measures which I later had to take in order to protect the German currency and to maintain Germany's foreign trade, all these measures I always discussed jointly with the representatives of foreign creditors. Approximately every six months we met, and I always gave them a detailed account of German conditions. They were permitted to look into the books of the Reichsbank. They could examine and interrogate the officials of the Reichsbank and they always confirmed that I told them everything in the most frank and open manner. So that I may say that I worked in a fair and friendly way also with these men.
DR. DIX: And how did your policy of peaceful agreement affect foreign trade, export, credit, and so forth?
SCHACHT: I believe that after the happenings that have now taken place it is today even clearer than before that Germany cannot and could not live without foreign trade, and that the maintenance of export trade must be the basis for the future existence of the German nation. Consequently, I did everything in order to maintain German foreign trade. I can cite a few specific examples to supplement the general principles. I tried, for example, to do business with China in order that we might export to China. I was ready to give China credit and did. I hailed the fact that the Soviet Union kept up an extensive flow of trade with us, and I always advocated expanding and stabilizing this foreign trade in the case of Russia as well as China. About the ability and readiness to pay and the promptness of payment of the opposite parties I never had any doubts.
THE PRESIDENT: He is going into unnecessary detail in support of the allegation that he tried to maintain export trade. We do not surely need details.
DR. DIX: As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, this exposition is of great significance and relevance. It shows Schacht contrary and in opposition to the policy carried out by Hitler. Hitler was hostile to the Soviet Union and this hostility is counterbalanced by open friendliness on the part of and in the person of the Minister of Economics. If I want to prove that Schacht was pioneer of a policy of understanding between nations, even in phases where Hitler carried on a peaceful battle, so to speak, with another country, such as the war of propaganda against the Soviet Union, then, in my opinion, this point is very important for Schacht's fundamental attitude-on one side war and on the other understanding. This is of absolute relevance.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant has made the allegation. It is for the Prosecution to dispute it in cross-examination and if they do, then the details might become material in re-examination.
DR. DIX: I believe the question has been answered, and now I shall turn to an entirely new phase of questioning. Since it is typical of his desire for understanding and his direct basic opposition to the policy of Hitler, I would like to refer to Document Number Schacht-34, which is an affidavit of Schniewind, the banker and Swedish Consul General at Munich. This is Exhibit 34, Page 114, of the English translation, and I would like to quote a short paragraph on Page 112 of the German text, which confirms Dr. Schacht's remarks. Schniewind, who was a high official in the Ministry of Economics, says here: "My department dealt with the Reich guarantees for deliveries to Russia, and thus I was in position to know that Schacht considered Hitler wrong in fighting Russia. Through much effort, he obtained Hitler's permission to send extensive supplies, especially machines to Russia. Frequently I gained the impression that Herr Schacht favored these deliveries because, while instrumental in giving employment, they did not benefit rearmament. Herr Schacht on several public occasions pointed out with satisfaction that trade shipments to Russia were proceeding promptly and smoothly." There are just a few more minutes before the customary recess, Your Honor, and before we take our recess, I ask that I be permitted to reply shortly to Your Lordship's remarks of a few minutes ago. The defendant must conduct what is, to a certain degree, a very difficult defense.
DR. DIX: The Prosecution very simply argued: "You helped to finance rearmament and this rearmament in the final analysis ended in war and not only a war but a war of aggression; therefore, you as a defendant are either a conspirator or an accomplice, and that is a war crime." As far as this argument is concerned, it must in my opinion be open to the defendant, first-and we shall deal with that later-to point out that rearmament as such by no means constitutes a desire for aggressive war; and secondly, to show that his acts actually indicate the exact opposite, namely, his desire for concord and peace; and for these fundamental reasons, I do beg the Tribunal not to cut me short in this evidence but rather to give me the time to carry it through in detail. This explains my desire to set forth Schacht's policy toward the Soviet Union, a policy in which he was in direct opposition to Hitler, to bring it forth in its entirety, and also my wish to show that he worked for agreement on all levels- with directors of banks and credit furnishers-that is, he advocated a policy of give and take rather than one of unilateral terrorizing and strife. Gentlemen of the Bench, it is chiefly on a psychological plain on which I have to conduct the defense; that is a very sensitive and delicate field, and I again ask that my task may not be made more difficult. Then, when the witnesses are called, I for my part will most likely dispense with every witness except one, and I beg that you show me some consideration. Does Your Lordship consider it time for a recess?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, Dr. Dix. I thought that the Tribunal has shown you every consideration, and we will now certainly have a recess. [A recess was taken.]
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, what was your attitude toward the Leadership Principle? Did you not realize the danger of giving a blank check, the danger of losing your own capacity of responsibility? You have heard that Sir David considers the Leadership Principle in itself to be criminal.
SCHACHT: As to whether the Leadership Principle is criminal or not, opinions throughout history have been much divided. If we look back through Roman history we see that from time to time in dire periods of distress a leader was selected to whom everyone else was subordinate. And if I read Failure of a Mission by Henderson there, too, I find sentences in which he says: "People in England sometimes forget and fail to realize that even dictators can be, up to a point, necessary for a period and even extremely beneficial for a nation." Another passage from the same book says: "Dictatorships are not always evil." In other words, it depends on just what is attributed to a Fuehrer, how much confidence one has in a Fuehrer, and for how long a time. Of course, it is a sheer impossibility for someone to assume the leadership of a country without giving the nation from time to time an opportunity of saying whether it still wants to keep him as Fuehrer or not. The election of Hitler as Fuehrer was in itself no political mistake; in my opinion one could have introduced quite a number of precautionary limitations with a view to averting the danger you have mentioned. I regret to say that that was not done, and that was a great mistake. But perhaps one was entitled to rely on the fact that from time to time a referendum, a plebiscite, a new expression of the will of the people would take place by which the Fuehrer could have been corrected, because a leader who cannot be corrected becomes a menace. I recognized that danger very well, I was afraid of it, and I attempted to meet it. May I say one more thing? Limitless Party propaganda attempted to introduce the idea of a Fuehrer as a lasting principle into politics. That of course is utter nonsense, and I took the opportunity-I always took such opportunity whenever it was possible-of expressing my dissenting opinions publicly.
SCHACHT: I took the opportunity in an address to the Academy of German Law, of which not only Nazis but lawyers of all groups were members, and in that speech I lectured about the Leadership Principle in economics. And I expressed myself ironically and satirically, as unfortunately is my wont, and said that it was not necessary to have a leader in every stocking factory, that in fact, this principle was not a principle at all, but an exceptional rule which had to be handled very carefully.
DR. DIX: I know that, because I was present on the occasion of that address. What did you think about the ideology of the master race (Herrenvolk)?
SCHACHT: I have always considered it a very unhappy precedent to speak of a "chosen people," or of "God's own country," or of things like that. As a convinced adherent to the Christian faith I believe in Christian charity, which bids me extend love to all men without regard to race or faith. I would like to mention also that the silly talk about the master race, which some Party leaders made their own, was held up to constant ridicule by the German public. That was not surprising, because most of the leaders of the Hitler Party were not exactly ideal types of the Nordic race. And in that connection, when these things were discussed among the German population, little Goebbels was referred to as "Der Schrumpfgermane"-the shrivelled Teuton. Only one thing-I have to say this to be just-did most of the leaders of the Party have in common with the old Teutons-and that was drinking; excessive drinking was a main part of the Nazi ideology.
DR. DIX: What did you think of the so-called National Socialist Weltanschauung?
SCHACHT: Weltanschauung in my opinion is a summation of all those moral principles which enable me to acquire a clear judgment on all aspects of life. Therefore it is a matter of course that a Weltanschauung cannot take root in the tangible world, but must rise above it; it is something metaphysical, that is to say, it is based on faith, on religion. A Weltanschauung which is not rooted in religion is in my opinion no Weltanschauung at all. Consequently I reject the National Socialist Weltanschauung which was not rooted in religion.
DR. DIX: In the trial brief against you it is expressly stated that there are no charges against you with regard to the Jewish question. Nevertheless I am putting to you a few questions on this topic, because the trial brief by its very words takes from you what in the Jewish question it conceded you; that is to say, the trial brief accuses you repeatedly of Nazi ideology, in which strict observance of anti-Semitism is integral.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I simply cannot be bound by silence after this flagrant misstatement of our position made in conjunction with this witness' testimony. It is not true that we make no charges against Dr. Schacht with reference to the Jews. What is true is that we say that he was not in complete sympathy with that aspect of the Nazi program which involved a wholesale extermination of the Jews, and he was for that reason attacked from time to time. It is further conceded that he gave aid and comfort to individual Jews, but we do charge that he believed the Jews of Germany should be stripped of their rights as citizens, and that he aided and participated in their persecution. And I do not like to have our position misstated and then be met with a claim of estoppel by silence.
DR. DIX: I have to thank you, Mr. Justice Jackson, for your clarifying statement, and it is now all the more necessary that I put in questions to Dr. Schacht, but at this moment I want to point out . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Please put it then.
DR. DIX: Your Lordship, it is not only a question, but it is a problem, and I should like to ask the Prosecution to clarify it now, because it still needs clarification even after the statement of Mr. Justice Jackson. If the Tribunal do not think that this is the opportune time I can bring it up later. I believe, however, that it would be right to bring it up now. As I see it, there is a contradiction in the Indictment, and I would like it clarified, so that we shall not be at cross-purposes in our final speeches. I can put it quite briefly. It is the question of whether Dr. Schacht is accused also of Crimes against Humanity, that is, not only the crime of conspiracy concerning the war of aggression, but also the typical crimes against humanity, for on this point the individual passages, both of the Indictment and of the Prosecution speech in which the charges were presented, are at variance. I wanted to take the liberty of pointing out the contradictory passages and to ask the Prosecution to be kind enough to state conclusively at some future occasion whether Schacht is accused also on Count Three and Four of the Indictment. In presenting the charges the Prosecution stated, and that indicates that the Prosecution will limit itself to Counts One and Two: "Our evidence against the Defendant Schacht is limited to the planning and preparation of aggressive war and his participation in the conspiracy for aggressive war." Similar statements are on Page 3 of the trial brief. Also, in Appendix A of the Indictment the charges against Schacht are limited to Counts One and Two. However, on Page 1 of the Indictment we find the following: ". . . accuse as guilty . . . of Crimes against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes against Humanity, and of a Common Plan or Conspiracy to commit those Crimes...." And then all the defendants are listed, including the Defendant Hjalmar Schacht.
DR. DIX: On Page 17 of the German text of the Indictment we read: "On the basis of the facts previously stated, the defendants"- that is, all the defendants-"are guilty." That is, all the defendants are guilty of Counts One, Two, Three, Four. It also states, on Page 18 of the Indictment: "All defendants committed, from 1 September 1939 to 8 May 1945, War Crimes in Germany and in countries and territories occupied by German troops after 1 September 1939 and in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Italy, and on the high seas." On Page 46 it reads: "During several years before the 8th of May 1945, all defendants committed Crimes against Humanity in Germany" -and so forth. Therefore, some parts of the oral presentation and of the Indictment show that the Prosecution limits its charges against Schacht to Counts One and Two, but other passages express beyond doubt that he is also accused of Crimes against Humanity. I think it would be helpful-it need not be done immediately, but I wanted as a precaution to express it now-if at the proper time the Prosecution would state to what extent the charges apply to Schacht.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your Honor, it will take only one moment to answer that, and I think the cross-examination-the examination should not proceed under any misapprehension. At all times, and in all documents that I am aware of, the Defendant Schacht has been accused of being guilty of Count One. Count One, as the statement of the offense, states: "The Common Plan or Conspiracy embraced the commission of Crimes against Peace in that the defendants planned, prepared, and initiated wars of aggression . . . In the development and course of the Common Plan it came to embrace the commission of War Crimes, in that it contemplated, and the defendants determined upon, and carried out ruthless war . . ." And that included also Crimes against Humanity. Our contention is that, while the Defendant Schacht himself was not in the field perpetrating these individual atrocities, he is answerable for every offense committed by any of the defendants or their co-conspirators up to the time that he openly broke with this outfit with which he became associated. That is our contention and Dr. Dix should conduct his examination on the assumption that every charge is a charge against Schacht up to the time that he openly, and on record so that somebody knew it, became separated from the company with which he chose to travel.
DR. DIX: It is probably my fault, but I still cannot see clearly. First, I do not know what date the Prosecution means when it admits that Schacht openly broke with the regime. I must, during my examination...
THE PRESIDENT: I think you must make up your own mind as to what time it was, the time at which he openly broke. Are you not able to hear?
DR. DIX: I have to make up my mind now?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I think you had better go on with the evidence.
DR. DIX: All right. I can refer to the subject again later. [Turning to the defendant.] Well then, please do not make any statements of principle concerning the Jewish question, but tell the Tribunal, and give a few examples, of what your attitude was on the Jewish question.
SCHACHT: The Jewish question came up quite early, when, in 1933, a New York banker, the late James Meier, announced his intention to visit me. I went to Hitler at that time and told him, "Mr. James Meier, one of the most respected New York bankers and a great benefactor of his old home country, Germany, will come to visit me, and I intend to give a dinner in his honor. I assume that you have no objection." He immediately said, in a very definite and pronounced manner, "Herr Schacht, you can do everything." I assumed that he gave me absolute freedom to keep in contact with my Jewish friends, which I did. The dinner actually took place. I only mention this because it was the first time the Jewish question was brought up between us. At every occasion I took a definite position on the Jewish question-and wherever possible, publicly-I have always looked for that opportunity. I will give only two examples of that. There was a branch of the Reichsbank in Arnswalde in the Province of Brandenburg. The name of the manager of that branch office was one day posted up in one of the public Stuermer boxes in his town, and termed a traitor to the people because his wife had bought 50 pfennings worth of ribbon or the like in a Jewish-store. I at once approached the competent official at Arnswalde and demanded the immediate removal of the placard and an immediate correction to the effect that the man was no traitor to the people. That was refused; whereupon, without asking anyone, I closed the Reichsbank branch at Arnswalde. It took a number of weeks until, in the end, the Oberpraesident, who was of course also a Nazi boss, came to me and asked me to reopen the branch office. I told him, "As soon as they repudiate that affair publicly I shall reopen the branch office at Arnswalde." It took only a few days before the Oberpraesident and Gauleiter of Brandenburg, Grube, had the announcement made public in the Arnswalde newspaper, in large print, and so I reopened the branch office in Arnswalde. That is one example.