dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "And that further, with reference to the Four Year Plan, we should solve only those problems which appear most pressing. Among these I include the oil-fuel program, the buna program, and the program of developing ore resources, insofar as this development does not of itself require large amounts of raw materials which must be withheld from export. "On the other hand, all other measures of the Four Year Plan should be postponed for the time being. I am convinced that by such a policy our export could be increased so greatly that there would be a certain improvement in our exhausted stocks, and that the resumption of the strengthened armament would again be possible in the not too distant future, from the point of view of raw materials. I am unable to judge to what extent a temporary postponement of armament would have military advantages. However, I presume that such a pause in armament would not only have advantages for the training of officers and men, which has yet to be done, but that this pause would also afford an opportunity to survey the technical results of previous armament and to perfect the technical aspect of armament." Now that you addressed to Goering, did you not?
SCHACHT: That is perfectly possible. I cannot remember the letter, but it looks quite like one of mine.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and you were correctly giving to Goering your true views; were you not?
SCHACHT: No; I believe that this was merely a tactical letter. I think that I was mainly trying to limit armament. If I had told him that we wanted to stop arming, Goering would probably have denounced me to the Fuehrer accordingly. Therefore I told him, "Let's stop for the time being"-temporary. I also emphasize "temporary." It was a tactical measure to convince Goering that for the time being it should be temporary.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, with your fellow officers in the Government you were also using tactical statements which did not represent your true views?
SCHACHT: That was absolutely necessary.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did it cease to be necessary, Dr. Schacht?
SCHACHT: Cease?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; when did it cease to be necessary?
SCHACHT: I think it more important to ask when it commenced; when it started.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well?
SCHACHT: During the first years I did not do it, of course, but later on I did to a considerable extent. I could say always; it never stopped.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Has it stopped now?
SCHACHT: I have no more colleagues, and here before this Tribunal I have nothing to tell but the truth.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on the 24th of September, 1935-December-you wrote EC-293, which is Exhibit Number USA-834, and used this language, did you not: "If there is now a demand for greater armament, it is, of course, not my intention to deny or change my attitude, which is in favor of the greatest possible armament and which I have expressed for years both before and since the seizure of power; but it is my duty to point out the economic limitations of this policy."
SCHACHT: That is very good.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that is true?
SCHACHT: Certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there came in the Four Year Plan in 1936?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not like the appointment of Goering to that position?
SCHACHT: I thought he was unsuited and, of course, it made an opening for a policy which was opposed to mine. I knew perfectly well that this was the start of exaggerated armament, whereas I was in favor of restricted rearmament.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Why do you say that Goering's appointment meant exaggeration of armament? Can you point to anything that Goering has said in favor of rearmament that is any more extreme than the things you have said?
SCHACHT: Oh yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, will you do it?
SCHACHT: Yes, I think if you read the record of the so-called "small Ministerial Council," of the year 1936, and in particular 1938, which you yourself introduced, you will see at once that here the necessity of increased armament was emphasized. For instance, those of November or October 1936, I think.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, it was also emphasized in your documents, was it not, throughout?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You say that your statements of that sort were merely tactical.
SCHACHT: No, I beg your pardon. I said arm within the limits of what is economically possible and reasonable. Goering, if I may say it again, wanted to go beyond those limits.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is exactly the point I want to make. Your difference with Goering over rearmament was entirely a question of what the economy of Germany would stand, was it not?
SCHACHT: No. I said that the most important thing was that Germany should live and have foreign trade, and within those limits we could arm. However, it is out of the question that Germany should arm for the sake of arming, and thus ruin her economy.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well that's the difference between you and Goering; it was over what the economy would stand, was it not?
SCHACHT: No, it was a question of the extent of rearmament. The point is, Mr. Justice Jackson, that German economy paid the price for Goering's action. The only question is, was it reasonable or unreasonable? If I may state it pointedly, I would say that I considered Goering's economic policy to be unreasonable and a burden to the German nation; while I considered it most important that rearmament should not be extended and that the German nation should have a normal, peacetime standard.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 3 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT (Lord Justice Sir Geoffrey Lawrence): The Tribunal will sit in open session tomorrow at 10 o'clock and will adjourn into closed session at 12 noon. Mr. Justice Jackson and Defendant Schacht: It is desired on behalf of the interpreters that you should pause if possible after the question has been put to you and if you find it necessary, owing to the condition of the documents with which you are dealing, to read in English or speak in English, to give an adequate pause so that those interpreters who are interpreting from English into other languages can take over the interpretation. Is that clear?
MR. JUSTICE ROBERT H. JACKSON (Chief of Counsel for the United States): I owe an apology constantly to the interpreters. It is hard to overcome the habit of a lifetime.
THE PRESIDENT: It is very difficult.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: [Turning to the defendant.] Dr. Schacht, by the way, the photograph Number 10 which was shown you yesterday, that was one of the occasions on which you wore the Party Badge which you referred to, was it not?
HJALMAR SCHACHT (Defendant): That may be.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You are quite sure of that, are you not?
SCHACHT: I cannot distinguish it clearly; but it may be, and that would prove that the picture must have been taken after 1937.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is what I wanted to prove. And as a matter of fact, it was taken after 1941, was it not? As a matter of fact, Bormann did not come to any important official position until after 1941, did he?
SCHACHT: Bormann?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Bormann, yes.
SCHACHT: That I do not know.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if we return to the Four Year Plan which began in 1936, as I understand it you opposed the appointment of Goering to have charge of the Four Year Plan on two grounds: First, you thought that that new plan might interfere with your functions; and secondly, if there were to be a Four Year Plan, you did not think Goering was fit to administer it?
SCHACHT: I do not know what you mean by "opposed." I was not satisfied with it and considered the choice of Goering not the right one for any leading position in economics.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: As a matter of fact you have described Goering as a fool in economics, have you not?
SCHACHT: Yes, as one does say such things in a heated conversation.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: Or in interrogation?
SCHACHT: Interrogations are also sometimes heated.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, very soon Goering began to interfere with your functions, did he not?
SCHACHT: He tried it repeatedly, I believe.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, he got away with it too, did he not?
SCHACHT: I do not understand what you mean by "he got away with it."
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, this American slang is difficult, I admit. I mean he succeeded.
SCHACHT: In July 1937 he had me completely against the wall.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That started over a proposal that he made or a measure that he took with reference to mining?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: He also made a speech to some industrialists, did he not? '
SCHACHT: I assume that he made several speeches to industrialists. I do not know to which one you are referring. I presume you mean the speech in December 1936 or so.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am referring to the speech in which you said to us in interrogation that Goering had assembled industrialists and said a lot of foolish things about the economy which you had to refute.
SCHACHT: That was the meeting of 17 December 1936.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you wrote to Goering complaining about the mining measures?
SCHACHT: I assume that you mean the letter of 5 August?
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: Right. That document is Document EC-497, Exhibit USA-775. And in that letter of August 1937 you said this, if I quote you correctly: "Meanwhile I repeatedly stressed the need of increased exports and actively worked towards that end. The very necessity of bringing our armament up to a certain level as rapidly as possible must place in the foreground the idea of as large returns as possible in foreign exchange and therewith the greatest possible assurance of raw material supplies." Correct?
SCHACHT: I assume it is.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also said this, I believe: "I have held this view of the economic situation which I have explained above from the first moment of my collaboration." That was also true, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, both of those things were true, were they not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then you concluded, addressing Goering: "I ask you to believe me, my dear Prime Minister, that it is far from me to interfere with your policies in any way whatsoever. I offer no opinion, either, as to whether my views, which are not in agreement with your economic policy, are correct or not. I have full sympathy for your activities. I do believe, however, that in a totalitarian state it is wholly impossible to conduct two divergent economic policies." And that was also true, was it not?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: And that was the basis on which you and Goering disagreed so far as policy was concerned?
SCHACHT: So far as what was concerned?-Policy? I do not understand what you mean by policy. I mean the way business was conducted.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.
SCHACHT: Entirely aside from other differences which we had.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: These other differences were personal differences. You and Goering did not get along well together?
SCHACHT: On the contrary. Until then we were on very friendly terms with each other.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Oh, were you?
SCHACHT: Oh, yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: So the beginning of your differences with Goering was the struggle as to which of you would dominate the preparations for war?
SCHACHT: No.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: WE
SCHACHT: I have to deny that absolutely. The differences...
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you want to say anything more about it?
SCHACHT: The differences which led to my resignation resulted from the fact that Goering wanted to assume command over economic policies while I was to have the responsibility for them. And I was of the opinion that he who assumes responsibility should also have command; and if one has command then he also has to assume the responsibility. That is the formal reason why I asked for my release.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, I turn to your interrogation of 16 October 1945, Document 3728-PS, Exhibit USA-636, and ask if you did not give the following testimony: "After Goering had taken over the Four Year Plan-and I must say after he had taken over the control of Devisen, already since April 1936-but still more after the Four Year Plan in September 1936, he had always tried to get control of the whole economic policy. One of the objects, of course, was the post of Plenipotentiary for War Economy in the case of war, being only too anxious to get everything into his hands, he tried to get that away from me. Certainly as long as I had the position of Minister of Economics, I objected to that . . ." You made that statement?
SCHACHT: I believe that is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, and then you describe your last visit with him after Luther for two months had endeavored to unite Goering and yourself.
SCHACHT: That is a mistake; it is Hitler, and not Luther.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Very well. You described it as follows: "Then I had a last talk with Goering; and at the end of this talk Goering said, 'But I must have the right to give orders to you.' Then I said, 'Not to me, but to my successor.' I have never taken orders from Goering; and I would never have done it, because he was a fool in economics and I knew something about it, at least. "Question: 'Well, I gather that was a culminating, progressive, personal business' between you and Goering. That seems perfectly obvious.' "Answer: 'Certainly.' " Is that correct?
SCHACHT: Yes, certainly.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And then the interrogator went on: "Let us go into the duties of that job for a moment and see what he was trying to take away from you. There are only two possibilities, as it has been explained to me; if I am wrong, correct me. One would be the preparation for a mobilization, and the other would be the actual taking charge of this in the event of war. Otherwise, the post had no meaning. So the things you resisted his taking away from you, as I see it, were the right to be in charge of the preparation for mobilization and, secondly, the right to control in the event of war. "Answer: 'Correct.' " Did you give that testimony?
SCHACHT: Please, Mr. Justice, you are confusing the events in relation to time. The differences with Goering about this so-called Plenipotentiary for War Economy occurred in the winter 1936-37; and the so-called last conversation with Goering which you have just mentioned took place in November 1937. I stated, I believe in January 1937, that I was prepared to turn over the office and the activity as Plenipotentiary for War Economy immediately to Goering. That can be found in the memorandum from the Jodl Diary which has been frequently mentioned here. At that time the War Ministry, and Blomberg in particular, asked to have me kept in the position of Plenipotentiary for War Economy, since I was the Minister of Economy, as long as I was the Minister of Economy. You can find the correspondence about that, which I think has already been submitted by you to the Tribunal.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, all right; I think the dates appear in your testimony. I am not concerned at the moment with the sequence of events; I am concerned with the functions that you were quarreling over, and which you described in your interrogations. And the questions and answers which I read to you are correct; these are the answers you made at the time, are they not?
SCHACHT: Yes, but I must say the following: If you ask me about these individual phases, it will give an entirely different picture if you do not single out the different periods. Mr. Justice, surely you cannot mention events of January and November in the same breath and then ask me if that is correct. That is not correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, let us get what is wrong about this, if anything. When was your last conversation with Goering in which you told him he would give orders to your successor but not to you?
SCHACHT: November 1937.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the question as to the duties of the job has nothing to do with relation to time, has it? That is, the Plenipotentiary for War Economy, the disagreement between you and Goering, and in order to make it perfectly clear I will read this question and answer to you again, and I am not concerned with time; I am concerned with your description of the job. "Question: 'Let us go into the duties of that job for a moment and see what he was trying to take away from you. Now, there are only two possibilities, as it has been explained to me; if I am wrong, correct me. One would be the preparation for a mobilization, and the other would be the actual taking charge of this in the event of war. Otherwise the post had no meaning. So the things you resisted his taking away from you, as I see it, were the right to be in charge of the preparation for mobilization and, secondly, the right to control in the event of war."' And you answered, "correct," did you not?
SCHACHT: This difference...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Can you answer me first as to whether you did give that answer to -that question, that it was correct?
SCHACHT: Yes, the minutes are correct. And now I should like . . .
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right.
SCHACHT: But now please let me finish.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, go ahead with your explanation.
SCHACHT: Yes. Now I wish to say that that disagreement between Goering and myself had absolutely nothing to do with the conversation of November, and that it was not even a disagreement between Goering and myself. That disagreement which you have just read about occurred in January 1937, but it was not at all a difference of opinion between Goering and myself because I said right away, "Relieve me of the post of Plenipotentiary for War Economy and turn it over to Goering." And the War Ministry, that is, Herr Von Blomberg, protested against this, not I. I was delighted to turn over that office to Goering.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Is there anything in writing about that, Dr. Schacht?
SCHACHT: The documents which you have submitted here. ] would like to ask my counsel to look for these documents and to present them during the re-examination. They have been submitted by the Prosecution.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, is it not a fact that your controversy with Goering was a controversy of a personal character, between you and him, for control and not a controversy as to the question of armament? You both wanted to rearm as rapidly as possible.
SCHACHT: I do not want to continue that play with words as to whether it was personal or anything else, Mr. Justice. I had differences with Goering on the subject; and if you ask whether it was on armament, speed, or extent, I reply that I was at greatest odds with Goering in regard to these points. I have never denied that I wanted to rearm in order to gain equality of position for Germany. I never wanted to rearm any further. Goering wanted to go further; and this is one difference which cannot be overlooked.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now I do not want to play upon words; and if you say my reference to it as personal is a play upon words, you force me to go into what you told us about Goering. Is it not a fact that you told Major Tilley this? "Whereas I have called Hitler an amoral type of person, I can regard Goering only as immoral and criminal. Endowed by nature with a certain geniality which he managed to exploit for his own popularity, he was the most egocentric being imaginable. The assumption of political power was for him only a means to personal enrichment and personal good living. The success of others filled him with envy. His greed knew no bounds. His predilection for jewels, gold and finery, et cetera, was unimaginable. He knew no comradeship. Only as long as someone was useful to him did he profess friendship. "Goering's knowledge in all fields in which a government member should be competent was nil, especially in the economic field. Of all the economic matters which Hitler entrusted to him in the autumn of 1936 he had not the faintest notion, though he created an immense official apparatus and misused his powers as lord of all economy most outrageously. In his personal appearance he was so theatrical that one could only compare him with Nero. A lady who had tea with his second wife reported that he appeared at this tea in a sort of Roman toga and sandals studded with jewels, his fingers bedecked with innumerable jewelled rings and generally covered with ornaments, his face painted and his lips rouged." Did you give that statement to Major Tilley?
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you say you had no personal differences with Goering?
SCHACHT: Mr. Justice, I ask here again that the different periods of time should not be confused. I found out about all these things only later and not at the time of which you speak, that is, the year 1936.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Do you dispute the testimony of Gisevius that in 1935 he told you about Goering's complicity in the whole Gestapo set-up?
SCHACHT: I have testified here that I knew about the Gestapo camps which Goering had set up and said that I was opposed to them. I do not at all deny that.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But your friendship continued despite that knowledge.
SCHACHT: I have never had a friendship with Goering. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON WE
SCHACHT: I surely cannot refuse to work with him, especially as long as I do not know what kind of a man he is. MR. JUS
TICE JACKSON: All right. Let us take up foreign relations, about which you have made a good deal of complaint here. I think you have testified that in 1937 when you were doing all this rearming, you did not envisage any kind of a war, is that right?
SCHACHT: No, what you are saying, Mr. Justice, is not correct. In 1937 I did not do everything to rearm; but from 1935, from the fall of 1935 on, I tried everything possible to slow down the rearming.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right. I refer you to your interrogation of 16 October 1945, and ask whether you gave these answers to these questions: "Question: 'Let me ask you then, in 1937 what kind of war did you envisage?' "Answer: 'I never envisaged a war. We might have been attacked, invaded by somebody; but even that I never expected.' "Question: 'You did not expect that. Did you expect a possibility of a mobilization and concentration of economic forces in the event of war?' "Answer: 'In the event of an attack against Germany, certainly.' "Question: 'Now, putting your mind back to 1937, are you able to say what sort of an attack you were concerned with?' "Answer: 'I do not know, Sir.' "Question: 'Did you have thoughts on that at the time?' "Answer: 'No, never.' "Question: 'Did you then consider that the contingency of war in 1937 was so remote as to be negligible?' "Answer: 'Yes.' "Question: 'You did?' "Answer: 'Yes.' " (Document Number 3728-PS) Did you give those answers?
SCHACHT: I have made exactly the same statements as found in this interrogation, here before the Tribunal.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you testified that you tried to divert Hitler's plan which was to move and expand to the East-you tried to divert his attention to colonies instead.
SCHACHT: Yes.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What colonies? You have never specified.
SCHACHT: Our colonies.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And where were they located?
SCHACHT: I assume that you know that exactly as well as I do.
MR.JUSTICE JACKSON: You are the witness, Dr. Schacht. I want to know what you were telling Hitler, not what I know.