dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
GEN. RUDENKO: I say that we did not use this document during the cross-examination of the witness Gisevius, but we did ask an explanatory question in order that when the document was presented by Dr. Dix, we could object to it as being of no probative value. I especially...
THE PRESIDENT: But did you not put the contents of the document to Gisevius? I do not remember. What I want to know is did you not put the contents of the document?
GEN. RUDENKO: No, no, we did not submit the contents, and we did not discuss the substance of the document. We merely asked a question-did the witness Gisevius know about the article in the Baster Nachrichten of 14 January 1946? That was the question, and the witness answered that it was known to him.
DR. DIX: May I say one more thing? It appears to me that the Soviet Delegation does not desire to have the article submitted as evidence. I therefore withdraw it as evidence. And since I have no due reasons to the contrary, no factual reason to the contrary, I can certainly fulfill this wish of the Soviet Delegation. I would like the Tribunal to consider the matter as settled. May I now put my question? [Turning to the defendant.] Well, you had conversations in Switzerland?
SCHACHT: Yes.
DR. DIX: What was the subject of these conversations, in broad outlines, and with whom did you have them?
SCHACHT: This article, which has just been discussed...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: First, Your Honor, may I interpose an objection? The reason I did not join in the Soviet objection to this document was that I want to know who this economist is. I vacant to check this thing. There are very peculiar circumstances about this document and I object to his retelling a conversation with an unknown economist. All I ask is that he identify time and place and person with whom he had his conversation, so that we can do a little verifying of this effort to get something before the Tribunal that did not appear until 1946.
DR. DIX: The question is now being given a significance which its comparative triviality really does not merit. I shall, therefore, dispense with this question too. Please do not now refer to the conversation with the professor, and I shall leave it to the Prosecution to put the question which Mr. Justice Jackson has just mentioned during cross-examination. Well, your conversations in Switzerland, then, excepting that with the unknown professor.
SCHACHT: Yes, I tried again and again to shorten the war and to bring about some form of mediation which I always sought for particularly through the good offices of the American President. That is all that I can say here. I do not think I need go into details.
DR. DIX: Very well. Did you in your letters to Ribbentrop and Goering-you have already mentioned Hitler-or besides, did you, during the war, state your views about the policy of the war in writing at any time? First of all, as far as Hitler was concerned.
SCHACHT: I mentioned my discussion with Hitler in February 1940. In the summer of 1941 I wrote a detailed letter to Hitler, and the witness Lammers has admitted its existence. I do not think he was asked about the contents of this letter here, or he was not allowed to talk about it. If I may come back to it; in that letter, I pointed out somewhat as follows-I shall use direct language- "You are at present at the height of your success."-This was after the first Russian victories.-"The enemy believes that you are stronger than you really are. The alliance with Italy is rather a doubtful one, since Mussolini will one day fall and then Italy will drop out. Whether Japan can still come to your aid at all is questionable in view of Japan's weakness in the face of America. I assume that the Japanese will not be so foolish as to wage war against America. The output of steel, for instance, in spite of approximately similar population figures, amounts to one-tenth of the American production. I do not think, therefore, that Japan will enter into the war. I now recommend you at all events to reverse foreign policy completely and to attempt with every means to conclude a peace."
DR. DIX: Did you state your views to Ribbentrop during the war?
SCHACHT: I do not know when it was. On one occasion Herr Von Ribbentrop conveyed to me through his State Secretary, Herr Von Weizsacker, the reproachful message that I should not indulge in defeatist remarks. That may have been in 1940 or in 1941, during one of those 2 years. I asked where I had made defeatist remarks and it appeared that I had talked to my colleague Funk and had given him extensive reasons why Germany could never win this war. I held this conviction unchangeable at all times before and during the war, even after the fall of France. I answered Ribbentrop through his State Secretary that I, as Minister without Portfolio, considered it my duty to state my opinion to a ministerial colleague in its true conception, and in this written reply I maintained the view that Germany's economic power was not sufficient to wage this war. This letter, that is, a copy of this letter was sent both to Minister Funk and to Minister Ribbentrop through his State Secretary.
DR. DIX: I think, Your Lordship, this would be a suitable moment . . . The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours. Afternoon Session
DR. DIX: I spoke before of 20 July. Do you recall a statement made by Hitler about you in connection with 20 July?
SCHACHT: Codefendant Minister Speer was present and told me about it. It was on 22 July 1944 when Hitler issued the order to his circle for my arrest. At that time he made derogatory remarks about me and stated that he had been greatly hindered in his rearmament program by my negative activities, and that it would have been better if he had had me shot before the war.
DR. DIX: To conclude I come to a few general collective questions. Voices were heard within the country, and also abroad-and even the Prosecution, although recognizing your- intellectual capacities and the services you rendered, appears to consider it also- that it was incomprehensible that a man as clever as you did not recognize the true nature, the real intentions of Hitler in time. I would like you to state your position with regard to that accusation.
SCHACHT: I should like very much to have known the gentlemen who are now judging me, at a time when it might have been of use. These are the people who always know afterwards what ought to have been done before. I can only state that first of ale from 1920 until the seizure of power by Hitler, I tried to influence the nation and foreign countries in a way which would have prevented the rise and seizure of power by a Hitler. I warned the country to be thrifty but I was not heeded. I repeatedly warned the foreign nations to develop an economic policy which would enable Germany to live. I was not heeded, although as it now appears, I was considered a clever and foresighted man. Hitler came to power because my advice was not followed. The German people were reduced to great economic need and neither...
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President. For 2 days now we have been listening to lengthy explanations on the part of the Defendant Schacht, and I rather think that the explanations which have just been given by the Defendant Schacht are not definite answers to questions concerned with the Indictment brought against him, but mere speeches. I consider that they will only prolong the Trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal is, I think, fully apprised with the case on behalf of Defendant Schacht. They don't want to stop him putting forward his defense fully, but they would be glad if you could make it as short as possible and if he could make it as short as possible.
DR. DIX: My Lord, I am certain that I shall be through by the recess, and perhaps even before the recess; but I beg you to bear in mind that the defendant is accused of having assisted in the seizure of power. The question arises, how was it that...
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't ruling that this evidence was inadmissible. I was only asking you to get on with it as quickly as you could.
DR. DIX: Very well. Dr. Schacht, please continue and try to comply with the suggestions of the representative of the Soviet Prosecution as far as possible.
SCHACHT: As briefly as possible I will not go into detail; I will merely state that due to the collapse of 1918 and the unsatisfactory conditions of the Versailles Treaty, Germany was faced with a severe depression. The democratic parties, which had a firm hold on the regime at that time, were not able to improve the situation; and the other nations did not know what policy to take towards Germany. I do not reproach any one; I merely state facts. Consequently, in this state of depression, Hitler received a larger majority in the Reichstag than had ever been the case since the formation of the Reich. Now, I ask the people who, although silent at the time, can tell me now what I should have done; I ask them what they would have done. I have stated that I was against a military regime, that I wanted to avoid a civil war, and that, in keeping with democratic principles, I saw only the one possibility: To allow the man to lead the government once he had come to power. I said further that frown the moment I realized this I tried to participate in the government, not with the intention of supporting this man in his extremist ideas, but to act as a brake and, if possible, to direct his policies back into normal channels.
DR. DIX: Then there came a time later when you recognized the dangers, when you yourself suffered under the unbearable conditions of terror and of suppressed opinion, so that perhaps this question is pertinent and admissible: Why did you not emigrate?
SCHACHT: Had it been only a question of my personal fate, nothing would have been simpler, especially since, as we have heard before, I would have been offered that opportunity and it would have been made easy for me. It was not merely a question of my own welfare; but as I had devoted myself to the public interest since 1923, it was the question of the existence of my people, of my country. I know of no instance in history where emigrants were of help to their own nation. Of course, I speak of those emigrants who leave of their own free will, not those that have been expelled. It was not the case in 1792, at the time of the French Revolution; it vitas not the case in 1917, during the Russian Revolution; and it was not the case at the time of the National Socialist revolution which we witnessed. To sit in a safe harbor abroad and to write articles which no one reads in the home country...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, we don't warn' a historical lecture, do we?
DR. DIX: I believe we can stop here. He merely wanted to state why he did not emigrate. [Turning to the defendant.] You have been understood.
SCHACHT: Thank you.
DR. DIX: In the course of these proceedings, either in a Letter or in a poem-I do not know which at the moment-there was some mention of your thoughts on the possibility of dying a martyr's death; whether it would have served the cause of peace and the German nation, if you had done more than you did; if you had sacrificed your life...
SCHACHT: I think that you are referring to a quotation from one of my notes, which a representative of the American Prosecution read here, in which I spoke of the silence of death.
DR. DIX: Yes.
SCHACHT: If I had sacrificed myself, it would not have been of the slightest use because the circumstances of my sacrifice would never have become known. Either I would have disappeared in some prison or I would have died there, and no one would have known whether I was alive or not; or I would have been the victim of a planned accident, and it would not have been possible to become a martyr. Martyrs can be effective only if their martyrdom becomes known to the public.
DR. DIX: May I ask for the attention of the Tribunal for a moment? Yesterday I was denied a question concerning the social attitude of the diplomatic corps and its influence on men like Schacht, for instance. The question which I want to put now is not the same question; otherwise I would not put it. But it has nevertheless . . .
THE PRESIDENT: The objection that I made was to the use of the word "attitude," because I don't see how witnesses can give evidence about the attitude of a corps. I said I think especially that the fact that the diplomatic corps were present at the Party rally might be given in evidence, but I said that the word "attitude" was far too general. What is it you want to put now?
DR. DIX: Yesterday, the question which I framed in the following manner was denied: "How was Schacht influenced by the collective attitude of the diplomatic corps?" That question was denied, and that concludes the matter. Now, I should like first to clarify the matter because I do not want to create the impression of smuggling into the proceedings a question which may raise the same objections. On the one hand, it is essential for my line of defense to show that people from abroad with judgment, who were above being suspected of wanting to prepare for an aggressive war, had the same attitude toward the regime as Schacht had. On the other hand, it is one of the strong points of my defense to show that the work of these people in their opposition was not only not supported by foreign countries but was actually made more difficult. That is the thema probandum that is important for me, and on this theme-but please, Herr Schacht, do not answer before I have received the permission of the Tribunal-this theme....
THE PRESIDENT: State exactly what the question is.
DR. DIX: Yes, I will put the question now. According to my notes I intended to refer to the tokens of honor, which the Nazi regime received from abroad, and to the representatives and numerous state visits paying honor to the regime, which have already been mentioned here. I wanted to ask the defendant what influence these frequent marks of great honor had on the work and aims of this group of conspirators. However, since that question is very similar to the one that has been rejected-and I prefer to malice my objections myself rather than to have them made to me-I wanted to submit the question to the Tribunal first and make sure that it is admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the question being: "What effect did the recognition of the Nazi regime from abroad have upon the group of conspirators with whom the Defendant Schacht was in contact?" That is the question, is it not? Well, that question, as the Tribunal thinks, you may put.
DR. DIX: It is admissible if "Anerkennung" is translated correctly as "honor"-honor, not recognition in the sense of recognition of a government in diplomatic official language, but honor, respect. It is a difficulty of translation and I do not want a misunderstanding-may I put to him, first, the individual official visits which I have noted, so that he can answer the question? May I do that?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may; actual visits?
DR. DIX: Yes. The list will not be complete. [Turning to the defendant. I remind you that in 1935, the delegate of the Labor Party, Alan Hartwood.
TO PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that you ought to put the question in the general way in which I put it to you, and not go into details of each visit or the details of each number of visits.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: If Your Honor pleases, I want to object to it as generalities, because it already appears that the United States did not participate in this and I tried to keep the European politics out of this case, and this is the entering wedge. Now, I don't want to get into this sort of thing. I think it is entirely irrelevant that some foreigner, deceived by the appearance which the Defendant Schacht was assisting in putting up, didn't start a war earlier. This thing is entirely irrelevant. The United States has desired to keep this sort of thing out of this case because it is endless if we go into it. It seems to me, if Herr Schacht wants to put the responsibility for his conduct on some foreigner, that foreigner should be named. He has already said that the United States representatives, Mr. Messersmith and Mr. Dodd, had no part in it because they were always against them. Now, it gets into a situation here which seems to me impossible before this Tribunal, and I cannot understand how it constitutes any defense for mitigation for Schacht to show that the foreign powers maintained intercourse with Germany even at a period of its degeneration.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the question is relevant but should be put without detail.
DR. DIX: I will put the question without detail, and I would like to say that I cannot, of course, speak of myself and America in the same breath; but I, too, am trying to avoid foreign politics. However, my question does not concern foreign politics. [Turning to the defendant.] Here is the one question: What influence did the honors which were showered upon the Nazi regime by foreign countries, in a manner well known to you, have on the work of your group of conspirators?
SCHACHT: Throughout the years from 1935, up to and including 1938, numerous statesmen from almost all other nations came to Berlin to visit Hitler, including some crowned heads. From America, for instance, there was Under Secretary of State Phillips.
DR. DIX: Do not mention any names.
SCHACHT: I said that only because names were expressly mentioned here. It is not limited to Europe. I do not intend to make any political explanations, I merely say that there were so many visitors, which meant not only recognition but respect for Hitler, that this man appeared a very great man in the eyes of the German people. I still remember that in 1925, I believe, the King of Afghanistan, Amanullah, appeared in Berlin. He was the first foreigner to visit the Social Democratic Government, and there was a celebration because at last a great man from another country had visited us. In the case of Hitler, starting with 1935 there was one visitor after another; and Hitler went from one foreign political success to another, which made it extremely difficult to enlighten the German people and made it impossible to work for that enlightenment within the German nation.
DR. DIX: And now, two final questions. You have heard the speech by the British Attorney General Shawcross, who said that there should have been a point where the servants of Hitler refused to follow him. We want to accept that point of view, and I ask you: Do you believe that you yourself acted in accord with that postulate of the leader of the British Delegation?
SCHACHT: I not only accept it, but I fully approve of it. From the very moment when I recognized what a harmful individual Hitler was, what a threat to world peace, I broke with him, not only secretly, but publicly and personally.
DR. DIX: So you consider that when you realized the truth you did everything humanly possible to try and save humanity from the disaster of this war and bring it to an end, once it had started.
SCHACHT: I know of no one in Germany who would have done more in that respect than I did. I warned against excessive armament. I impeded, and if you like, sabotaged effective armament through my economic policy. I resigned from the Ministry of Economics against the will of Hitler; I publicly protested to Hitler against all the abuses of the Party; I continuously warned people abroad and gave them information; I attempted to influence the policy of other nations with respect to the colonial question in order to achieve a more peaceful atmosphere. Credits for continued armaments.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we have heard this more than once, you know.
DR. DIX: Yes.
SCHACHT: May I be permitted one sentence: I blocked Hitler's credits and I finally tried to remove him.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen, I am now at the end of my presentation of evidence for Schacht's case, and I have only one request. During the last few days, I have received a large number of letters and also affidavits from well-known people who know Schacht. I will examine them; and if I should decide that any of the affidavits are relevant, I will get in touch with the Prosecution and discuss with them whether they have any objection to having them translated, so that we can perhaps submit them to the Tribunal-not to have them read, but merely to have them put in evidence. May I request that I be granted this right. At the end of my entire presentation, I will briefly submit my documents; this has been only partially done.
MR. PRESIDENT: Do any of the other defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. VON  LUDINGHAUSEN: I have only a few questions to put to Dr. Schacht. How long have you known Herr Von Neurath, Dr. Schacht?
SCHACHT: I cannot state the exact year, but at any rate for a very long time; for many, many years
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: For some time, for about 4 years, you were both colleagues as ministers in the government. During that time, did you have any contact with him other than in purely official capacity?
SCHACHT: Unfortunately not enough, but of course I saw him from time to time. I would have liked to have seen him more often.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: But from conversations with him, or from what you heard about him, you certainly formed an opinion about his political views.
SCHACHT: I was well acquainted with his views.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: And what was the trend of his political thought?
SCHACHT: I had the impression that basically Von Neurath believed in a conservative policy, but was open to conviction where progressive measures were concerned. He was above all in favor of peaceful international co-operation.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Do you consider it possible, or do you have any reason to believe, that under certain circumstances he would also resort to belligerent methods or that he would even consider them, if the peaceful understanding which he desired was quite impossible?
SCHACHT: According to my understanding of Neurath, I think that he was entirely averse to any aggressive policy.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: You witnessed the various . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ludinghausen, will you kindly put the earphones on, the Tribunal thinks these questions are not questions which can properly be put because of their general nature.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Did you have the impression that in everything that he achieved, particularly in the occupation of the Rhineland, Herr Von Neurath...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ludinghausen, this is not a proper question to put to a witness, "Did you have an impression about him?" You can ask him what he said and what he did; what did Von Neurath do and what did he say?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes; then I will not put this question. I have only one last question. [Turning to the defendant.] You know that on the 4th of February 1938 Von Neurath resigned as Foreign Minister. What did you and your immediate circle say to the resignation of Von Neurath from foreign politics? What impression did it make upon you?
SCHACHT: I believe I have already said in the course of the interrogation that I considered Von Neurath's resignation a very bad sign, for it meant departing from the previous policy of understanding in foreign politics.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defendants' counsel want to ask questions? Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it might save time, Your Honor, if we could take our recess at this time. It is a little early, I know, but it takes some time to arrange our material
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly. [A recess was taken.]
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Dr. Schacht, according to the transcript of the testimony at Page 8698 (Volume XII, Page 460), you said that in 1938 you told a certain lady while you were dining: "My dear lady, we have fallen into the hands of criminals. How could I ever have suspected that!" You recall that testimony?
SCHACHT: It was not I who gave that testimony; it came from an affidavit submitted here by my Defense Counsel, but it is correct.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I am sure you want to help the Tribunal by telling us who those criminals were.
SCHACHT: Hitler and his confederates.