The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-120.01


Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-120.01
Last-Modified: 2000/02/14

                                                   [Page 49]

                HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH DAY
                 FRIDAY, 3rd MAY, 1946

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit in open session
tomorrow at ten o'clock and will adjourn into closed session
at twelve 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 JACKSON: I owe an apology constantly to the
interpreters. It is hard to overcome the habit of a
lifetime.

THE PRESIDENT: It is very difficult.

BY MR. JUSTICE JACKSON:

Q. Dr. Schacht - by the way, the photograph number ten,
which was shown you yesterday, that was one of the occasions
on which you wore the Party Emblem which you referred to,
was it not?

A. That may be.

Q. You are quite sure of that, are you not?

A. I cannot distinguish it clearly, but it may be, and that
would prove that the picture was taken after 1937, after
January, 1937.

Q. 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 take up any important official position
until after 1941, did he?

A. Bormann?

Q. Bormann, yes.

A. That I do not know.

Q. 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?

A. 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.

Q. As a matter of fact you have described Goering as a fool
in economics, have you not?

A. Yes, as one does say such things in a heated
conversation.

Q. Or in interrogation?

A. Interrogations are also sometimes heated.

Q. Now, very soon Goering began to interfere with your
functions, did he not?

A. He tried to repeatedly, I believe.

Q. Well he got away with it, too, did he not?

A. I do not understand what you mean by that, "he got away
with it"?

                                                   [Page 50]

Q. Well, this American slang is difficult, I admit. I mean
he succeeded.

A. In July, 1937, he had me in a tight corner.

Q. That started over a proposal that he made or a measure
that he took with reference to mining?

A. Yes.

Q. He also made a speech to some industrialists, did he not?

A. 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.

Q. I am referring to the speech in which you told us during
interrogation that Goering had assembled industrialists and
said a lot of foolish things about the economy, which you
had to refute.

A. That was the meeting of 17th December, 1936.

Q. And then you wrote to Goering complaining about the
mining measures?

A. I assume that you mean the letter of 5th August?

Q. Right. That document is 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
  materials supplies."

A. I assume that it is.

Q. 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?

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. Now, both of these things were true, were they not

A. Yes.

Q. And then you concluded, addressing Goering:

  "I ask you to believe me, my dear Prime Minister, that it
  is not my intention at all 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 an economic policy divided against
  itself."

And that was also true, was it not?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the basis on which you and Goering disagreed
so far as policy was concerned?

A. So far as what was concerned? - policy? I do not
understand what you mean by policy. Do you mean the way
business was conducted?

Q. Yes.

A. Entirely apart from other differences which we had.

Q. These other differences were personal differences. You
and Goering did not get along well together?

A. On the contrary. Until then we were on very friendly
terms with each other.

Q. Oh, were you?

A. Oh, yes.

Q. So the beginning of your differences with Goering was the
struggle as to which of you would dominate the preparations
for war?

A. No.

                                                   [Page 51]

Q. Well -

A. I have to deny that absolutely. The differences -

Q. Do you want to say anything more about it?

A. The differences which led to my resignation resulted from
the fact that Goering wanted to assume command over economic
policies, while I was to take the responsibility for the
same. 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 responsibility. That is
the formal reason why I asked for my release.

Q. Well now, I turn to your interrogation of 16th October,
1945. Exhibit USA 636, and ask if you did not give the
following testimony:

  "By Schacht:
  
  "After Goering had taken over the Four-Year Plan - and I
  must say that he had taken over the control of foreign
  exchange since April, 1936, already - but still more so
  after the Four-Year Plan in September, 1936, he always
  tried to get control of the whole economic policy. One of
  the objectives, of course, was to become Plenipotentiary
  for War Economy in case of war, and he tried to get that
  away from me, as he was only too anxious to get everyone
  under his control. As long as I had the position of
  Minister of Economics, I certainly objected to that."

You made that statement?

A. I believe that is correct.

Q. Yes, and then you describe your last visit to him after
Luther, for two
months, had endeavoured to unite Goering and yourself.

A. That is a mistake; that is Hitler, and not Luther.

Q. 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

A. Yes, certainly.

Q. And then the interrogator went on:

  "Let us look 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?

A. Please, Mr. Justice Jackson, 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 1936-1937; 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.

                                                   [Page 52]

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 Economics, and as
long as I was the Minister of Economics. You can find the
correspondence about that, which I think has already been
submitted by you to the Tribunal.

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
quarrelling over, and which you described in your
interrogations. And the questions and answers which I read
to you are correct; those are the answers you made at the
time, are they not?

A. Yes, but I must say the following: If you ask me about
these different phases, it will give an entirely different
picture if you do not separate the different periods. You
cannot mention events of January and November in the same
breath and then ask me if that is correct. That is not
correct.

Q. Well, let us find out 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?

A. November, 1937.

Q. 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, 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 look 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?

A. This difference -

Q. Can you answer me first as to whether you did give that
answer to that question, that it was correct?

A. Yes, the minutes are correct. And now I should like -

Q. All right.

A. But now please let me finish.

Q. All right, go ahead with your explanation.

A. 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 difference
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 immediately, "Take the
post of Plenipotentiary for War Economy away from me 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.

Q. Is there anything in writing about that, Dr. Schacht?

A. The documents which you have submitted here. I 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.

Q. 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.

A. I do not want to continue that play with words as to
whether it was personal or anything else, Mr. Justice
Jackson. I had a difference of opinion with Goering

                                                   [Page 53]

on this matter, and if you ask whether it was on armament,
speed, or expense, I reply that I had great difficulty 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 go any
further than that. Goering wanted to go further, and here is
one difference which cannot be overlooked.


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.