One Hundred Ninteenth Day:
Thursday, 2nd May, 1946
[Page 40]
A. May I finish?
Q. Yes.
A. In 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 or Germany, which was
a Christian State and based on Christian conceptions, or to
the Jews, since it increased the animosity against them. For
this reason I was always in favour of
[Page 41]
Q. 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:
Now, with respect to civil service.
"Answer: With the same limitation.
"Question: Now, did you ever express yourself in the
Cabinet or else, where on 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 an important
enough matter to take a position on it?
"Answer: Not an important enough matter to risk a break."
Q. Then, you were asked this:
A. Yes.
"Question: You were in favour 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.
"Answer: Yes."
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. Were you in favour of that legislation, or were you not?
A. Is that the question now or from the - .
Q. I am asking you now.
A. Yes, I agreed to it. Yes.
Q. You were in favour of it. Well, you were not when you
were interrogated.
A. You can see how difficult it is.
Q. The question then was, were you in favour of it, and you
said "I wasn't in favour, but I had to sign it.
"Answer: Yes."
Q. "Question: And, obviously, it was a Bill which was put
in by your Ministry, was it not?
"Answer: Yes."
A. Yes, I assume so; You see, in these matters it was a
question of degrees. I have just explained the principles of
my policy. The extent to which these individual laws went,
is a question of politics. Today, you can say what you like
about it.
[Page 42]
A. Yes, possibly. I don't remember but probably it is right.
Q. And you also approved a law imposing the death penalty on
German subjects who transferred German property abroad or
left German property abroad.
A. Yes.
Q. And of course you knew that that affected, chiefly and
most seriously, the Jews who were moving abroad.
A. I hope that the Jews did not cheat any more than the
Christians.
Q. Well, the death penalty on German subjects for
transferring German property abroad was your idea of a just
law?
A. I don't understand. My idea?
Q. Yes.
A. It was an idea of the Minister of Finance, and I signed
it.
Q. 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."
A. Yes.
Q. And the question: "Yes. In other words, you had quite
another objective which was more important."
A. Yes.
Q. "Well what was that objective, Dr. Schacht?" I am still
reading. It saves time.
A. Oh, pardon me.
"Question: That is to say, the restoration of the German
economy.
"Answer: Quite.
"Question,: And the completion of the armament programme.
"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."
Q. Yes. So the armament question was so important that you
didn't want to risk any break about the Jews.
A. Not the armament question but the equality of Germany.
Q. Well, now, I just asked you "by means of armament, as you
yourself have said."
A. And I say, also by means of armament. That is one of the
means.
Q. And it is the only one that was used ultimately, wasn't
it?
A. No, it wasn't. There were other ones.
Q. 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?
A. That is possible.
Q. And you wrote to Blomberg on the 24th of December, 1935,
giving your motives, did you not, saying this:
A. Yes. I quoted it myself yesterday.
[Page 43]
A. I don't know which offices you mean, but please go ahead.
Q. I will help you to list them. In the first place, you
were Plenipotentiary for War.
A. Yes.
Q. That was the secret office at first.
A. Yes.
Q. You were President of the Reichsbank. That was the
financial office.
A. Yes.
Q. And you were Minister of Economics, in which position you
had control of the Ministries for the general economic
situation.
A. Yes. This word "control" is such a general term that I
cannot confirm your statement without question, but I was
Minister of Economics.
Q. Now, let us take up first this position of
Plenipotentiary for War. You have testified that this
position was created for two purposes:
A. That means preliminary planning in the event that there
should be a war, and the direction of economy in the event
of the outbreak of war. In other words a preparatory period
and a later period in the event of war.
Q. And you were asked about your functions and gave these
answers, did you not?
Q. You answered "certainly." And your office as
Plenipotentiary for War was of equal rank with the War
Ministry, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. 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 War. Is
that correct?
A. I assume so, yes.
Q. And in January of 1937 you wrote this, did you not
Q. And who was your deputy in that office? Wohltat?
A. I think Wohltat.
Q. Now, those being your functions as Plenipotentiary for
the War Economy, let's turn to your functions as President
of the Reichsbank.
You have said that the carrying out of the armament
programme was the principal task of the German policy of
1935, have you not?
A. Undoubtedly.
Q. There is no doubt that you voluntarily assumed the
responsibility for finding financial and economic means for
doing that thing.
A. No doubt.
Q. And you were the financial and economic administrator in
charge of developing the armament industry of Germany.
A. No.
Q. You were not?
A. No, in no way.
Q. Well, I may have misunderstood you.
[Page 44]
"Now in connection with this development of the armament
industry, you considered yourself the financial and
economic administrator of it."
Nodding your head.
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Nodding your head.
A. Yes.
Q. "You considered yourself" - I will ask the whole question
so you will get it.
A. Yes.
Q. "Now, in connection with this development of the armament
industry, you considered yourself the financial and economic
administrator of it."
The record says that you nodded your head.
"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."
A. I am sure that you are correct.
[
Previous |
Index |
Next ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
(Part 11 of 12)
[MR. JUSTICE JACKSON continues his cross examination of Hjalmar Schacht] "Question: There was this aryan clause that was put in.
Did you agree with that legislation?
A. To break, that's right.
"You certainly signed a law with respect to the
prohibition against Jews receiving licences to deal in
foreign currencies."
Do you remember that?
Q. "Answer: Yes, may be.
You said that?
"Question: Well, you were the only one who signed it. You
were the Reich Minister of Economics.
Is that correct?
Q. "Answer: Well, the objective was to stay in power and
to help carry this through in an ordinary and reasonable
way.
A. All correct, and I stand by that today.
"The economic and illegal treatment of the Jews, the anti-
Church movement of certain Party Organizations, and the
lawlessness which centres 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."
You wrote that, did you not?
"(a) Preparation for war. (b) Control of the economy in
event of war."
Is that correct?
"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.
A. Yes.
"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 applied in case of
emergency, and necessary organizations be ready at the
outbreak of war."
A. I assume that that is correct.
"Question: Now in connection with this development" - I
am referring to your interrogation of 16th October, 1945,
Exhibit USA 636, Page 44.
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?
Did you make those answers, and are they correct?