dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SCHACHT: I have already repeatedly explained here that my release from office as Minister of Economy encountered very great difficulties, and you have also submitted several affidavits confirming the fact. Hitler did not, under any circumstances, want it to be known that a break or even so much as a difference of opinion had occurred between one of his assistants and himself. When he finally approved my release, he attached the condition that nominally I should remain Minister without Portfolio. As regards the second accusation, it is as unworthy as it is wrong. There was a law in Germany that if a person held two public of flees he could be paid only for one. Since I was in addition President of the Reichsbank I continuously received my income from the Reichsbank, at first my salary and later my pension; therefore as a minister I drew no salary whatever.
DR. DIX: Did you then, during the entire period of your position as Reich Minister without Portfolio, have any other function to fulfill in that capacity? Did you take any part in important decisions of the Cabinet, did you participate in discussions-in brief, was the Minister without Portfolio just a fancy dress major or was the position one of substance?
SCHACHT: I have already emphasized again and again in this Court-and I can only repeat it again-that after I left the Reichsbank I had not a single official discussion; I did not take part in a single ministerial or official conference and that, unfortunately, it was not possible for me to bring up any subject for discussion; for I had no factual basis or pretext for such a possibility, for the very reason that I had no particular field to administer. I believe that I was the only Minister without Portfolio-there were also a few others-who was not active in any way at all. As far as I know, Seyss-Inquart was undoubtedly Minister without Portfolio; he had his administration in Holland. Frank was Minister without Portfolio and had his administration in Poland. Schirach-I do not know whether he was Minister without Portfolio; I think it has been mentioned once, but I do not know if it is correct-he had his Austrian administration in Vienna. I had nothing further to do with the state administration or in any other way with the State or the Party.
DR. DIX: What about the ordinary course of affairs? Were there perhaps any circulars sent out by Lammers on which you acted?
SCHACHT: On the whole-and I think it is understandable after what I have stated here-I watched carefully for every possibility of intervening again in some way but I remember and state with absolute certainty, that during the entire time until the collapse I received all in all three official memoranda. The numerous invitations to state funerals and similar social state functions really need not be mentioned here as official communications. I did not participate in these occasions either. However, these three instances are interesting. The first time it was a letter from Hitler-pardon, from Himmler-a circular or request or a bill proposed by Himmler who intended to transfer court jurisdiction over the so-called asocial elements of the population to the police, or rather the Gestapo, that is to say, a basic principle of the administration of justice to separate the functions of prosecution and judge...
DR. DIX: Well, that is known, Dr. Schacht. You can assume that is known.
SCHACHT: In regard to this question I immediately assented in the copy of a letter which Reich Minister Frank had sent me in which he took a stand against this basic violation of legal principles, and the bill was not made law. It would indeed have been extremely regrettable, because I am firmly convinced that I myself was a definite antisocial element in Himmler's sense. The second instance was a letter concerning some discussions about state property in Yugoslavia, after we had occupied Yugoslavia. I answered that since I had not taken part in the preliminary discussions on the draft of the law I should not be counted upon to assist in this matter. Finally, the third incident-and this is the most important-occurred in November 1942. Apparently by mistake there came into circulation the draft for a law of the Reich Minister for Air, which contained the suggestion of taking 15 and 16 year old students away from the high school to enlist them for military service in the antiaircraft defense, the so-called Flakdienst. I answered this letter because it was a welcome opportunity for me to state for once my opinion on the military situation in a long detailed reply which I sent to Goering.
DR. DIX: On the third of November?
SCHACHT: It is a letter of 30 November, which on the second of December I believe was given personally by my secretary to the adjutant of Goering in a closed envelope, with the request that he himself open it.
DR. DIX: One moment, Dr. Schacht. [Turning to the Tribunal] That letter has already been submitted under Document Number 3700-PS by the Prosecution, but it is also in our document book under Exhibit Number 23; Page 66 of the English text and Page 59 of the German text. If we were not so pressed for time, it would have been especially gratifying for me to read this letter here in full It is a very fine letter. However, I want to take time into consideration and I merely ask you, Dr. Schacht, to state briefly your opinion of its content.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will read the letter. It isn't necessary for you to read it now, is it?
DR. DIX: Very well. Well, then, would he speak quite briefly about the letter before the recess or do you not wish to say anything further?
SCHACHT: Yes. I would like to say in this connection, if it is permitted, that to my knowledge this letter has already been read here by the American Chief Prosecutor, that is...
DR. DIX: Read?
SCHACHT: Or mentioned, or at least the most important points were read. I believe it is sufficient if you submit the letter to the Court in evidence.
DR. DIX: Yes, that has been done. Now, that constituted your entire activity as Reich Minister without Portfolio?
SCHACHT: Yes, that was the end of it.
DR. DIX: Therefore if one wanted to define your position in one word, one would say, just a kind of retired major (Charaktermajor).
SCHACHT: I don't know what a "Charaktermajor" is, at any rate, I was never a major, but I have always had character.
DR. DIX: But, Dr. Schacht, that is a historical remark about authority conferred by Kaiser Wilhelm the First as German Emperor on Bismarck.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is a convenient time to break off:. [A recess was taken.]
DR. DIX: Dr. Schacht, we spoke of the letter, dated 30 November 1942, to Goering. Did that letter have any consequences?
SCHACHT: Yes, the letter had very considerable consequences. It had the result that on 22 January I did at last receive my long hoped-for release from my position of a nominal Minister without Portfolio. The reason given for it, however, was less pleasant. I believe the letter is already in the files of the Tribunal. It is a letter attached to the official document of release from Lammers.
DR. DIX: Yes, very well We put a question on that subject during Lammers' hearing.
SCHACHT: Yes. But I should only like to refer to the statement which says: ". . . in view of your entire conduct in the present fateful struggle of the German nation. . ."-so that was my whole attitude.
DR. DIX: Gentlemen of the Tribunal, it is Number 26 of the document book. It is on Page 76 of the English text and on Page 69 of the German text. [Turning to the defendant.] Please continue.
SCHACHT: It was, therefore, my entire attitude during this war which led to my dismissal, and the letter of dismissal also contained the statement that I would be dismissed for the time being. According to Lammers' statement, as we have heard, this expression "for the time being" was included in the letter, also on the Fuehrer's initiative. I was very clearly aware of this wording when I received the letter. Two days later I was removed from the Prussian State Council, of which I was a member-a body, incidentally, which had not met for at least 8 years. At any rate, I was not at the meetings. Perhaps it was 6 years, I do not know, The text of that decision was communicated to me by the chairman of that State Council, Hermann Goering, and because of its almost amusing contents, I still recollect it very clearly. It stated: "My answer to your defeatist letter undermining the power of resistance of the German people is that I remove you from the Prussian State Council." I say it was amusing because a sealed letter written by me to Goering could not possibly shake the power of resistance of the German people. A further result was that Party Leader Bormann demanded from me the return of the Golden Party Badge and I did that at once. After that I was particularly closely watched by the Gestapo. I gave up my residence in Berlin immediately, within 24 hours, and for the whole day the Gestapo spies followed me all over Berlin both on foot and by car. Then I quietly retired to my estate in the country.
DR. DIX: Now, since the trial brief has mentioned material and pecuniary reasons for the decisions which you made, it appears to me justified and necessary to ask what was the position regarding your property and your income after 1933? In your reply please take into consideration that it is striking that in 1942 there was an increase in your income.
SCHACHT: A few months ago, apparently with the approval of the Military Government, there appeared in the press a list of donations which the Party leaders and ministers in Germany received and, in that connection, of their income and their property. I was also listed, not under "donations," but it was stated that in 1942 I had an unusually high income. This list is incorrect, since it is a gross figure which is mentioned and it does not take into consideration the fact that the war profit tax was later deducted from it. When the list was compiled the tax was not yet determined, so that about 80 percent must be deducted from the sum which is given there. The income is then no longer striking in any way. In regard to my property, the list shows that over a period of 10 years it has hardly changed, and I want to emphasize here particularly that in the last 20 years my property remained approximately the same and did not increase.
DR. DIX: If I remember rightly you reduced your own salary as President of the Reichsbank at a certain time on your own initiative?
SCHACHT: When, on Hitler's suggestion, President Hindenburg in March of 1933 appointed me again to the position of President of the Reichsbank, Hitler left it to me to fix my own income. At that time, I voluntarily reduced my income to less than 25 percent of my former income from the Reichsbank.
DR. DIX: Did you ever receive presents or donations from Hitler, either in money or in valuables?
SCHACHT: As I have just mentioned, I have never received any kind of donations from Hitler, and I think he would hardly have risked offering me one. I did, indeed, receive one present from Hitler, on the occasion of my 60th birthday. He gave me a picture which certainly had the value of about 20,000 marks. It was an oil painting by a German painter Spitzweg; and would have been worth approximately 200,000 marks if it had been genuine. As soon as the picture was brought into my room I recognized it as a forgery, but I succeeded about 3 months later in tracing the original. I started proceedings on the subject of the genuineness of the picture, and the forgery was established before a court. low PRESIDENT: It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to listen to this.
DR. DIX: Did Hitler ever bestow on you the right to wear a uniform or give you any kind of decoration or military rank?
SCHACHT: If the Tribunal will permit me I would like to say that I returned the forgery and it was never replaced; so that I have received no presents from Hitler. Hitler offered me a uniform. He said I could have any uniform I desired but I only raised my hands in refusal and did not accept any, not even the uniform of an official, because I did not wish to have a uniform.
DR. DIX: Now, another subject: Did you know anything about the concentration camps?
SCHACHT: Already in the year 1933, when Goering established concentration camps, I heard several times that political opponents and other disliked or inconvenient persons were taken away to a concentration camp. That these people were deprived of their liberty perturbed me very much at the time, of course, and I continuously demanded, as far as I was in a position to do so during conversations, that the arrest and removal to concentration camps should be followed by a clarification before the law with a defense and so on, and suitable legal proceedings. At that early time the Reich Minister of the Interior Frick also protested energetically along the same lines. Subsequently this type of imprisonment, et cetera, became less known in public, and in consequence I assumed that things were, slowly abating. Only much later-let us say the second half of 1934 and 1935...
DR. DIX: When you met Gisevius, you mean?
SCHACHT: Yes, when I met Gisevius-I heard on repeated occasions that not only were people still being deprived of their liberty, but that sometimes they were being ill-treated, that beatings, et cetera, took place. I have already said before this Tribunal that as a result, as early as May 1935, I personally took the opportunity of drawing Hitler's attention to these conditions and that I told him at the time that such a system was causing the whole world to despise us and must cease. I have mentioned that I repeatedly took a stand against all these things publicly, whenever there was a possibility of doing so. But I never heard anything of the serious ill-treatment and outrages-murder and the like-which started later. Probably because, firstly, these conditions did not begin until after the war, after the outbreak of war, and because already from 1939 onwards I led a very retired life. I heard of these things and of the dreadful form in which they happened only here in prison. However, I did hear, as early as 1938 and after, of the deportation of Jews; but because individual cases were brought to my notice I could only ascertain that there were deportations to Theresienstadt, where allegedly there was an assembly camp for Jews, where Jews were accommodated until a later date when the Jewish problem was to be dealt with again. Any physical ill-treatment, not to speak of killing or the like, never came to my knowledge.
DR. DIX: Did you ever take a look at a concentration camp?
SCHACHT: I had an opportunity of acquainting myself with several concentration camps when, on 23 July 1944, I myself was dragged into a concentration camp. Before that date I did not visit a single concentration camp at any time, but afterwards I got to know not only the ordinary concentration camps but also the extermination camp in Flossenburg.
DR. DIX: Did you not, while in Flossenburg, receive a visit from a "comrade-in-ideas"-if I may say so?
SCHACHT: I know of this matter only from a letter which this gentleman sent to you or to this Tribunal, I believe, and in which he describes that visit. I can only, on my own observation...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think it is improper to give the contents of a letter from a person unidentified. I have said to this Tribunal before that these letters which come from unidentified persons -if he is identified, it has not been done in evidence-come to all of us. I am sure members of the Tribunal get a great many of them. If that is evidence, then the Prosecution should reopen its case, because I have baskets of them. I think it is highly improper to take communications and put them in evidence directly and it is even more improper to relate all of them by oral testimony when the document is not produced. I think this kind of evidence has no probative value and I object to it.
DR. DIX: May I be permitted to say that I would never do anything improper nor have I done it. I do not intend in any way to submit this very harmless jocular letter to the Tribunal as evidence. But this letter, which reached me through quite regular channels, informed Dr. Schacht and myself that there existed a plan to murder him in Flossenburg. That is why I also questioned the witness Kaltenbrunner on this matter. The only reason why I am asking Dr. Schacht is that I expect him to inform the Tribunal that according to this information there was in fact at that time an order to murder him. This fact, not the letter, is not without some significance, because if a regime wants to kill a man then that is at least proof of the fact that it is not particularly well-disposed toward him. That is the only reason why I asked that this letter be submitted, and it is, of course, also at Mr. Justice Jackson's disposal. It is really quite an amusing letter, written by a simple man. But I would never have considered submitting this letter as a document in evidence. If the Tribunal have objections to hearing the matter, a matter which was also discussed when Kaltenbrunner was examined, then I shall willingly omit it. I am quite astonished that the matter should be given so much significance.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the Tribunal thinks that the letter isn't being offered in evidence, and therefore you ought not to refer to it. Well, then, don't refer to it.
DR. DIX: All right, we shall leave it. [Turning to the defendant.] Well' now, at last you were released. What did you do then?
SCHACHT: After that time I did nothing more apart from continuing my efforts towards the removal of Hitler. That was my only political activity. For the rest, I was living on my estate.
DR. DIX: Did you not go on a journey in the spring of 1939?
SCHACHT: Excuse me, you are speaking of the time after the dismissal as President of the Reichsbank, I thought you meant minister. I was just talking of 1943.
DR. DIX: No. No.
SCHACHT: You are going back to the year 1939. After the dismissal in January 1939 I already mentioned that Hitler suggested to me that I should go on an extensive journey abroad and at the time I went to India by way of Switzerland, where I again saw my friends.
DR. DIX: Were you in any way politically active in India?
SCHACHT: In India I merely traveled as a tourist. I was not politically active but, of course, I visited several governors and I spent 3 days as the Viceroy's guest in his house in Simla.
DR. DIX: Did you not have political connections with Chinese statesmen in Rangoon?
SCHACHT: When I was in Burma, after leaving India, I received a visit in Rangoon from a Chinese friend who had visited me before in Berlin on occasion and who had been commissioned by his government to talk to me about the situation of China.
DR. DIX: That is Chiang Kai-Shek's China?
SCHACHT: Chiang Kai-Shek's China which was already at war with MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I can't see the slightest relevancy to this. In the first place, we heard it once and secondly, after we had heard it it has no relevancy to the case. We have no charge against him that he did anything in China and we will stipulate that he was as pure as snow all the time he was in China. We haven't a thing to do with that and it is taking time here that just gets us nowhere and is keeping us away from the real charge in the case. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal quite understands that you say it is irrelevant. Why do you say it is relevant? DR. DIX: I regret that Mr. Justice Jackson and I understand each other too little. The matter is relevant in the following connection: In this testimony and also in an affidavit which has been read... THE PRESIDENT: I think we heard three times that the Defendant Schacht went to India. Three times in his evidence he dealt with the fact that he went to India and China. How is it relevant? DR. DIX: I am not speaking of the journey to India. It had to be mentioned only briefly to explain the connection of time. I put 544 2 May 46 a question, referring to Schacht's negotiations in Rangoon with the envoy from Chiang Kai-Shek-with the Chinese-and at that point Mr. Justice Jackson raised his objection. But the fact that Schacht maintained friendly connections with Chiang Kai-Shek's Government and gave support to it, that fact is relevant, and for the same reason for which I attached importance to the fact that it became clear here that in regard to the Union of Soviet Republics also Schacht pursued a pro-Soviet line in his economic policy during the years when Hitler was conducting a political campaign against Russia. Here we have a second instance, where he is demanding relations which were contrary to the principles of Hitler's policy; that is relations with Chiang Kai-Shek, and so against Hitler's ally, Japan. It is in this connection that the negotiations with the Chinese are of significance. They will take only a moment's time at most.
SCHACHT: They were merely to be mentioned in passing. THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that if you consider his relations with China of any importance, it can be stated in one sentence. DR. DIX: I am of the same opinion. SCHACHT: I will sum it up in one sentence. In a written memorandum I advised Chiang Kai-Shek's government to continue holding out against Japan, giving as reason that the economic resources of China would last longer than the economic resources of Japan; and I advised Chiang Kai-Shek to rely primarily on the United States of America in his foreign policy. DR. DIX: Then upon your return from India, that is, in August 1939, you found a situation which must have appeared quite tense to someone who was just coming back. Did you not then attempt to contact the Cabinet or Hitler in order to discuss this situation? SCHACHT: Of course, I found a very tense situation in the question of Poland and I used my return as an occasion for writing a letter to Hitler, a letter to Goering, and a letter to Ribbentrop; that is to say, the three leading men, in order to inform them that I had come back from India, leaving it to their discretion and expecting that at least one of them would ask me for an account of my experiences; and then, I should have had an opportunity of talking to the leading men once again. To my very great surprise, I did not get an answer from Hitler at all; I received no reply from Goering; and Herr Von Ribbentrop answered me that he had taken note of my letter. There was therefore no other way for me but to make my own inquiries regarding the real state of affairs on Poland, and when things became critical I took the well-known step, which has already been described here by Herr Gisevius; namely the attempt to gain access to the Fuehrer's headquarters. 545 2 May 46 DR. DIX: We need not repeat that. The only question which I still want to ask you is what were you going to tell the generals, particularly General Von Brauchitsch, at that last moment? SCHACHT: That he still had a chance to avert a war.