dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SCHACHT: JUSTICE JACKSON: You never doubted Gisevius' word when he told you in 1934 or 1935 as he testified, did you? SCHACHT: One moment. He told me this either in 1934 or 1935, but not 1934 and 1935, and if he did tell me-well if Gisevius said so, I assume that it is true. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: It was then that you knew about the persecution of the churches and the destruction of the labor unions, wasn't it? SCHACHT: The destruction of the labor unions took place as early as May 1933. MR. JUSTICE; JACKSON: You knew all about that, didn't you? SCHACHT: I did not know everything, only what was generally known. I knew exactly what every other German knew about it and what the labor unions themselves knew. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As a matter of fact, that was one of the reasons for the contributions by yourself and other industrialists to the Nazi Party, wasn't it? SCHACHT: Oh, no; oh, no. There was never any question of that. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You mean that meetings of industrialists were held, and as important a thing to industry as the destruction of the labor unions was never mentioned in your conferences? SCHACHT: I know nothing about it. Will you please remind me of something definite. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Confiscation of the properties; the putting of labor union leaders into concentration camps. SCHACHT: I heard about that-one moment. I do not know exactly who was put into the concentration camps. I was informed about the confiscation of property because that was publicly announced; but, if I understand you correctly, I do not know what the meetings of industrialists had to do with it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also knew very early about the persecution of the Jews, didn't you? 588 2 May 46 SCHACHT: I explained yesterday exactly what I knew about the persecution of the Jews, how I acted in connection with the persecution of the Jews, and I state that as long as I was a minister I did everything to prevent these things. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I understood your generality, and I am trying to get at a little more detail about it, Dr. Schacht.
SCHACHT: Did you not testify as follows, on your interrogation on the 17th of October 1945: "The National Socialists, as I understood from the program, intended to have a smaller percentage of Jews in the governmental and cultural positions of Germany, with which I agreed." SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "Question: 'Well, now, you had read Mein Kampf, had you not?' "Answer: 'Yes.' "Question: 'And you knew the views of Hitler on the Jewish question. Did you not?' "Answer: 'Yes."' You so testified, did you not? SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "Question: 'Well, now, during your time as Reich Minister, 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? SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you did agree with excluding . .. SCHACHT: Yes, I always agreed with that principle. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. And you also agreed with the principle of excluding all Jews from civil service positions, did you not? SCHACHT: No. I want to emphasize in this connection... MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well . . . SCHACHT: May I finish? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. 589 2 May 46 SCHACHT: With regard to the principle of the dominating Jewish influence in government, legal, and cultural questions I have always said that I did not consider this influence to be of advantage either to the German people and Germany, which was a Christian state and based on Christian conceptions, or to the Jews, since it increased the animosity against them. For these reasons I was always in favor of limiting Jewish participation in those fields, not actually according to the population, but nevertheless limiting them to a certain percentage. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 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 Aryan clause that was put in.
SCHACHT: Did you agree with that legislation?' "Answer: 'With the same limitation.' "Question: 'Now, did you ever express yourself in the Cabinet or elsewhere 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 to do 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 an important enough matter to risk a break.' " SCHACHT: To break, that is right. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, you were asked this: "You certainly signed a law with respect to the prohibition of Jews receiving licenses to deal in foreign currencies." Do you remember that? SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "Answer: 'Yes, maybe.' "Question: 'You were in favor of that?' "Answer: 'I don't remember the details-of that question.' "Question 'Well, it is not a matter of details. The question is a matter of discrimination.' 590 2 May 46 "Answer: Yes.' " You said that? SCHACHT: Yes, certainly. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were in favor of that legislation, or were you not? SCHACHT: Is that the question now, or from the interrogation? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am asking you now. SCHACHT: Yes. I agreed to it, Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were in favor of it. Well, you were not when you were interrogated. SCHACHT: You can see how difficult it is. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The question then was, you were in favor of it, and 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?' "Answer: 'Yes.' "Question: 'And, obviously, it was a bill which was put in by your Ministry, was it not?' "Answer: 'Yes."' Is that correct? SCHACHT: Yes, I assume so. You see, in these matters it was a question of degrees. I have just explained the principles of my policy.
SCHACHT: The extent to which these individual laws went is a question of politics. Today, you can say what you like about it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, you also favored the law, and signed the law, prohibiting all Jews from being admitted to examinations for public economic advisors, for co-operatives, for example. SCHACHT: Yes, possibly. I do not remember but probably it is right. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you also approved a law imposing the death penalty on German subjects who transferred German property abroad, or left German property abroad. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And of course you knew that that affected, chiefly and most seriously, the Jews who were moving abroad. SCHACHT: I hope that the Jews did not cheat any more than the Christians. 591 2 May 46 MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, the death penalty on German subjects for transferring German property abroad was your idea of a just law? SCHACHT: I do not understand. My idea? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. SCHACHT: It was an idea of the Minister of Finance, and I signed it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, the question was then asked you after these were 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." SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And the question: "Yes. In other words, you had quite another objective which was more important?" SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "Well what was that objective, Dr. Schacht?" I am still reading. It saves time. SCHACHT: Oh, pardon me. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "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, the political equality of Germany.' "Question: 'By means of armament, as you yourself have said?' "Answer: 'Also by means of armament."' SCHACHT: All correct, and I stand by that today. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes.
SCHACHT: So the armament question was so important that you didn't want to risk any break about the Jews. 592 2 May 46 SCHACHT: Not the armament question, but the equality of Germany. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, now, I just asked you "by means of armament, as you yourself have said." SCHACHT: And I say, also by means of armament. That is one of the means. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And it is the only one that was used ultimately, wasn't it? SCHACHT: No, it was not. There were other ones. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: We will get to that in time. Now, isn't it a fact that you also approved the law dismissing all Jewish officials and notaries public? SCHACHT: That is possible. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you wrote to Blomberg on the 24th of December 1935 giving your motives, did you not, saying this: "The economic and illegal treatment of the Jews, the anti-Church movement of certain Party organizations, and the lawlessness which centers in the Gestapo are a detriment to our rearmament task which could be considerably lessened through the application of more respectable methods, without abandoning the goals in the least." (Exhibit Number Schacht-13). You wrote that, did you not? SCHACHT: Yes. I quoted it myself yesterday. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, as to the rearmament program, you participated in that from three separate offices, did you not? SCHACHT: I do not know which offices you mean, but please go ahead. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I will help you to list them. In the first place, you were Plenipotentiary for War. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That was the secret of lice at first. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were President of the Reichsbank. That was the financial office. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were Minister of Economics, in which position you had control with the minister for the general economic situation. 593 2 May 46 SCHACHT: Yes. This word "control" is such a general term that I cannot confirm your statement without question, but I was Minister of Economics. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, let us take up first this position of Plenipotentiary for War.
SCHACHT: You have testified that this position was created for two purposes: (a) Preparation for war. (b) Control of the economy in event of war. Is that correct? SCHACHT: That means preliminary planning in case war should come, and the direction of economy when war had broken out. In other words, a preparatory period and a later period in the event of war. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, you were asked about your functions and gave these answers, did you not, "As the Chief of Staff provides for mobilization from a military point of view... so you were concerned with it from the economic point of view." SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You answered, "certainly." And your position as Plenipotentiary for War was of equal rank with the War Ministry, was it not? SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And, as you told us, those charged with responsibility in event 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? SCHACHT: I assume so, yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And in January of 1937 you wrote this, did you not? "I am entrusted with 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 converted in case of emergency from this peacetime organization and need not be created at the outbreak of war." SCHACHT: I assume that that is correct. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And who was your Deputy in that office? Wohlthat? SCHACHT: I think Wohlthat., MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, those being your functions as Plenipotentiary for the War Economy, let's turn to your functions as President of the Reichsbank. 594 2 May 46 You said that the carrying out of the armament program was the principal task of the German policy in 1935, did you not? SCHACHT: Undoubtedly. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: There is no doubt that you voluntarily assumed the responsibility for finding financial and economic means for doing that thing. SCHACHT: No doubt. MR.
SCHACHT: JUSTICE JACKSON: And you were the financial and economic administrator in charge of developing the armament industry of Germany. SCHACHT: No. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You were not? SCHACHT: No, in no way. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I may have misunderstood you. "Question: 'Now, in connection with this development"'-I am referring to your interrogation of the 16th of October 1945, Exhibit USA-636 (Document Number 3728-PS), Page 44- "'Now in connection with this development of the armament industry, you charged yourself as the financial and economic administrator of it.' "Nodding your head." SCHACHT: I beg your pardon? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Nodding your head. SCHACHT: Yes MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "You charged yourself"-I will ask the whole question so you will get it. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: "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, second, with respect to foreign nations? "Answer: 'Internally, I tried to collect all money available for financing the mefo bills. Externally, I tried to maintain foreign commerce as much as possible.' " Did you make those answers, and are they correct? 595 2 May 46 SCHACHT: I am sure that you are correct. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And your purpose in maintaining foreign trade was to obtain enough foreign exchange to permit the imports of raw materials, not manufactured, which were required for the rearmament program. Is that not correct? SCHACHT: That is the question that is put to me. Now comes the answer. Please, will you read the answer? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What is your answer now? SCHACHT: My answer today is that that was not the only aim MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Not the only aim? SCHACHT: Right. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: But that was the primary aim, was it not? SCHACHT: No, not at all. MR.
SCHACHT: JUSTICE JACKSON: All right, what was the other aim? SCHACHT: To keep Germany alive, to assure employment for Germany, to obtain sufficient food for Germany. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Which was your dominant aim? SCHACHT: The food supply in Germany and work for the export industry. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, I should like to go over one or two of these documents with you as to your aim. I refer to Document 1168-PS of May 3, 1935. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Title, "Financing of Armament," Exhibit Number USA-37. "The following comments are based on the assumption that the completion of the armament program in regard to speed and extent is the task of German policy and that accordingly everything else must be subordinated to this aim, insofar as this main goal is not endangered, by neglecting other questions." Did you write that? SCHACHT: 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 in evidence and discussed in detail by the Prosecution. I did not receive the second document. When my defense counsel examined me I stated here that I was intent on stopping the Party collections and Party moneys, which 596 2 May 46 were extracted everywhere from the German people, because I was extremely difficult for me to get the money to finance the armament program and the mefo bills. I could only get that point across to Hitler if I told him the of course this was being done in the interests of armament. I had told him that this was done... MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes, but . . . SCHACHT: No, please let me finish. If I had told him that thin was done for the building of theaters, or something similar, I would have made no impression on him. However, if I said i must be done because otherwise we could not arm, that was point which influenced Hitler and that is why I said it. I admitted that and explained it during the examination by my attorney. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And you didn't call that misleading him? SCHACHT: I would not call it "misleading"; I would call it "leading."' MR.
SCHACHT: JUSTICE JACKSON: But leading without telling him the true motives which actuated you, at least. SCHACHT: I think you can be much more successful in leading a person if you do not tell him the truth than if you do tell bin the truth. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am very glad to have that frank statement of your philosophy, Dr. Schacht. I am greatly indebted to you. Well, you devised all kinds of plans, one for the control of foreign exchange, blocked foreign accounts; and mefo bills we. one of the principal ones of your devices for financing was it not SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, I don't care about the details of mefo bills, but I would like to ask you this. Isn't it correct, al you testified in the inquiry of the 16th of October 1945-Exhibit Number USA-636-as follows: "Question: '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 rearmament?' "Answer: 'Quite.' "Question: 'That is to say, through normal budget finance methods?' "Answer: 'Not enough.' 597 2 May 46 "Question: 'Also, you were limited at that time by the statute of the Reichsbank which did not permit you to give anything near the sufficient credit which was required by the armament program.' "Answer: 'Quite.' "Question: 'And you found a way?' "Answer: 'Yes.' "Question: 'And the way you found was by creating a device in effect which enabled the Reichsbank to lend, by a subterfuge, to the Government what it normally or legally could not do?' "Answer: 'Right.' " Is that true? SCHACHT: That was my answer. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The following questions were then asked: "I understand that basically what was built up in Germany in the way of an armament industry, a domestic economy that was sound, and a Wehrmacht, the efforts that you put in from 1934 to the spring of 1938, when mefo financing stopped, were responsible in large part for the success of the whole program.
SCHACHT: "Answer: 'I don't know whether they were responsible for it, but I helped a great deal to achieve that.' " SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: 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 largely responsible for the rearming of the German Army? "Answer: 'Oh no, I never did that.' "Question: 'You have always been proud of that fact, I take it.' "Answer: 'I wouldn't say proud, but satisfied." Is that still your position? SCHACHT: In reply to that I should like to say: The question of mefo bills was quite certainly a system of finance which normally would never have been attempted. I made a detailed statement on this subject when I was questioned by my attorney. On the other hand, however, I can say that this question was examined by all legal experts in the Reichsbank and by means of this 598 2 May 46 subterfuge, as you put it, a way was found which was legally possible. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, I didn't put it that way; you said so. SCHACHT: No, no. I mean the sentence you have just quoted as being my answer. I beg your pardon. The matter was investigated from' a legal viewpoint, and we assured ourselves that it could be done in this way. Moreover, I am still satisfied today that I contributed to the rearmament, but I wish that Hitler had made different use of it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on your 60th birthday Minister of War Blomberg said that, "Without your help, my dear Mr. Schacht, there could have been no rearmament," did he not? SCHACHT: Yes, those are the sort of pleasantries which one exchanges on such occasions. But there is quite a bit of truth. in it. I have never denied it. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is the way it looks to me. Now, when you finally made some suggestion that the armament should stop or slow up, as I understand, you made that suggestion without knowing what the armament was. SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: The only thing you were judging by was financial conditions, was it not? SCHACHT: Oh, no. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. Well, what was it?
SCHACHT: SCHACHT: I did, of course, have a general impression of these matters because General Thomas always discussed them with me. However, I do not remember that General Von Blomberg gave me detailed information about what he thought. Of course, I was informed in a general way regarding the progress made by the armament program, and that is why I said "more slowly." My opinion was strengthened because of the general conditions. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well now, let's see what reasons you gave in Document Number EC-286. That is Exhibit Number [TSA-833: "I am therefore of the opinion that we should promote our export with all resources by a temporary"-and I emphasize the word "temporary"-"decrease of armament." SCHACHT: Decrease? MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Decrease, yes, temporary. 599 2 May 46 SCHACHT: Yes. MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I emphasize "temporary," and you emphasize "decrease." SCHACHT: Oh no, no; I agree with you. 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.
SCHACHT: 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. 600 2 May 46 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.