Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-11/tgmwc-11-108.08
Last-Modified: 2000/01/13

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, the objection to 34 was not that the
original wasn't available but that it was a speech by Hitler
which was about re-armament and didn't seem to be relevant.

DR. DIX: Yes, that is correct. Thank you very much, Mr.
President.

Mr. Dodd, of course, could not recognise the relevancy of
the document. Schacht could recognise it, since he alone
knows his own inner development. This is a speech of Hitler
in which there is a passage which confirmed the slowly
developing suspicion on Schacht's part that this policy not
only would result in a war of aggression, but that possibly
Hitler actually desired the war. This suspicion was
particularly roused by this speech made by Hitler in the
Reichstag on 28th February, 1938. This speech is an
important milestone in presenting Schacht's inner attitude
towards Hitler and his policy, beginning with the year 1933,
when he was a follower until the turning-point when distrust
started, followed

                                                  [Page 376}

by opposition which was increased to continuous preparations
for revolt. For that reason I believe it is relevant
evidence. That is No. 34.

Then there is No. 38. That is the article from the "Basler
Nachrichten." In my opinion it is evidence of the greatest
importance. At any rate, I shall fight to my very last
breath to have that document admitted.

Subject: Before the war - the fight against the war; during
the war - the fight against the spreading of the war and the
attempts to bring about an early peace.

In 1941 - that is to say, before Russia's entry into the war
and before the entry of the United States into this war -
Schacht had a conversation with a political economist from
the United States, which he did not recollect until an
acquaintance sent him the article which had appeared in the
"Basler Nachrichten" of 14th January, 1946. He said, "Of
course, now I remember. Four years ago, in the spring of
1941, I had this conversation with an American political
economist." The name, he has also forgotten now. This
conversation shows once more the efforts he made as late as
1941 to prevent any spreading of the war and to make
contacts which would serve the purpose he was aiming at, in
particular by opening pourparlers with the United States and
the men near President Roosevelt.

We have no other evidence to prove the fact that this
conversation took place, since we cannot call upon this
professor because Schacht has forgotten his name. But it is
the professor himself who is anonymously speaking in this
newspaper article of 14th January, 1946.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, what is the nature of the
conversation which you say is reported in this newspaper?

DR. DIX: It is a fairly long article. Perhaps I may choose
at random a few points so that the Tribunal can understand
the nature of the conversation. The professor relates in
this interview that, at that time, Schacht took an extremely
critical attitude towards the National Socialist system of
government; and that Schacht pointed out to him the dangers
of maintaining such a system, since this would lead to a
complete atrophy of intellectual activities. And he
continued to tell the professor that this war was entirely
senseless and that, when considered from a higher level, it
would prove to be senseless and futile even for a victorious
Germany. He explained to the professor that every means
should be employed to stop the war, because in an orderly
world - in a world put in order by a just peace - the
governments would automatically become liberal. In the end
he suggests, therefore, that an attempt should be made at
all costs to establish contacts between the nations,
particularly with representative people from the United
States, before Russia and America entered the war.

He goes on to regret that Roosevelt - I beg your pardon ...
he goes on to name Roosevelt - and his friends - as the very
men who could carry out this great task, cleverly and
carefully. It is an attempt, your Lordship, similar to the
one which appears in the letter to Fraser which I quoted
before. Fraser, too, belonged to the closer ... at any rate,
let us say, one of these people who had entre to President
Roosevelt. It is the last desperate effort on his part,
relying on the confidence Roosevelt had in him personally,
to bring about peace before it was too late.

Such an attitude is, of course, of extraordinary relevancy
in rebutting the charge of aggression and that is why I
think that the Tribunal should admit this article as
important evidence. We cannot, after all, assume that this
professor is not telling the truth. Technically, it might be
possible to try to discover his name from the "Basler
Nachrichten," but I am afraid that the "Basler Nachrichten"
will not disclose the name without making further inquiries
from the professor in America. It is questionable whether he
will permit his name to be disclosed, and we may have
serious difficulties. Since personal experience shows that
the professor's report in the "Basler Nachrichten" is true,
then why should he not speak the truth here? Moreover, he is
a respected man. That is why I think that this

                                                  [Page 377]


piece of evidence is equilavent to a personal examination of
the professor. Therefore I urge you to admit this document
not only for translation but also in evidence. That was
Document A 38.

As to Merton - I am perfectly agreeable to sending an
interrogatory to Merton, but I believe that this would be a
superfluous effort: Actually I need this letter of Merton's
only to prove the fact that Lord Montague Norman, on his
return from a meeting of the B.I.S. (N.B. Bank for
International Settlement.) to England in 1939, told this man
Merton - who was a citizen of very high standing in
Frankfort-on-Main, belonged to the Metal Corporation
(Metallgesellschaft) and later emigrated - that Schacht was
in considerable personal danger because of his political
attitude. That is the main fact which I want to prove with
this letter, and it is contained in the letter. This letter
was not written by Merton to me or to Schacht. It is a
letter which was addressed to the Solicitor of the Treasury
and from there it was given to the prosecution here and the
prosecution was kind enough to inform us of the letter. We
thought it would be too complicated to have Merton called as
a witness. I am perfectly willing to have him interrogated,
but I think it would be a more simple and just as reliable a
method if the Tribunal permitted me to quote two short
passages from that letter. However, I am equally prepared to
send an interrogatory to London. That is No. 39.

Regarding No. 43, this is correspondence between Sir Nevile
Henderson and the editor of the Diary of the late Ambassador
Dodd. It is of the greatest importance in establishing the
reliability of the statements in the Dodd Diary from which,
not I, but the prosecution has quoted repeatedly, to the
detriment of Schacht. In order to prevent any
misunderstanding, I should like to emphasise at once that by
no means do we question the reliability of the late
Ambassador Dodd. Both Dr. Schacht and myself knew him
personally and we consider him to be an absolutely
honourable man. But the Tribunal knows that this Diary,
which was based on sketchy notes made by the Ambassador, was
edited by his children after his death. Therefore, it is
possible that mistakes may have occurred, bad mistakes. This
becomes evident from the correspondence between Sir Nevile
Henderson and the editor of the Diary, in which Sir Nevile
Henderson points out that a conversation or several
conversations, which according to the Diary Dodd is supposed
to have had with him, were quoted quite wrongly. I believe
there can be no better proof of the unreliability of this
Diary, than this correspondence between Sir Nevile Henderson
and the editor. Therefore, in order to test the credibility
of this evidence which was produced by the prosecution, and
to reduce its value to the proper proportion, I ask to have
this document admitted in evidence.

Regarding 54 to 61, I do not intend in any way to introduce
evidence by means of these documents. It is perfectly
agreeable to me if they are not translated, but the idea I
had in mind was merely that of making the work of the
Tribunal easier. I will examine Schacht with reference to
the excerpts of Goering's testimony. If the Tribunal
believes that it is not necessary to have these extracts
available when they are quoted or if it prefers to use the
record only or have the record which is here brought up for
use, then. of course it won't be necessary to translate
these passages. It is therefore merely a question of what
the Tribunal considers to be the most practical way. We have
made the extracts and if the Tribunal wishes, they can be
translated.

Now there is left only the affidavits. Mr. Dodd did not
mention them but I think at the time, when Sir David and I
discussed the witnesses and affidavits here in court in open
session, the affidavits had already been admitted by the
Tribunal. However, reserving the right of the prosecution to
ask counter-questions or call the witnesses for cross-
examination after having read the documents, that is, of
course, its privilege. We have been satisfied with
affidavits instead of personal appearances merely in order
to save time, but if the prosecution wishes these

                                                  [Page 378]

witnesses, from whom we have affidavits, to appear, then, of
course, the defence is perfectly agreeable to this.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn now.

(A recess was taken.)

THE PRESIDENT: I will deal first of all with the documents
on behalf of the defendant Schacht.

The following documents will be translated:

No. 7, No. 8, No. 9, No. 14, No. 18, No. 33, No. 34, No. 37,
No. 38, No. 39 and No. 49.

With reference to Documents 54 to 61 which are already in
the record, they will not be translated but Dr. Dix is
requested to give references to those documents in his
Document Book.

Documents 1 to 6 will not be translated at all.

I meant that the documents which I have not alluded to will
be translated - the documents which I have not referred to
specifically will be translated.

Now, Dr. Thoma.

DR. THOMA: Mr. President, first of all I am submitting
copies of the documents which were granted me this morning
and which are from Rosenberg's publications "Tradition and
our Present Age," "Writings and Speeches," "Blood and
Honour," "Formation of the Idea," and "The Myth of the
Twentieth Century," as evidence of the fact that the
defendant did not participate in a conspiracy against the
peace and in the psychological preparation for war. These
excerpts contain speeches which the defendant made before
diplomats, before students, before jurists and are meant to
prove that on these occasions he fought for social peace,
and that, in particular, he did not want the battle of
ideologies to result in foreign political enmity. In these
speeches he advocated respect for all races, spoke against
the propaganda for leaving the church, advocated freedom of
conscience and a sensible solution of the Jewish problem,
even giving certain advantages to Jews. In particular, he
called for equality and justice in this matter. I ask the
Tribunal to take official notice of these speeches and with
the permission of the Tribunal I call the defendant
Rosenberg to the witness stand.

ALFRED ROSENBERG, defendant, took the stand and testified as
follows:

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q. Will you state your full name?

A. Alfred Rosenberg.

Q. Will you repeat this oath after me:

I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient to speak the pure
truth and withhold and add nothing?

(Defendant repeated oath.)

THE PRESIDENT: YOU may sit down.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. THOMA:

Q. Herr Rosenberg, will you please give the Tribunal your
biographical data?

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, you have not given your exhibits
any exhibit numbers, have you?

DR. THOMA: Yes, I have. That is Ro-7a.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, they have all been numbered?

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well. When you refer to any of the
documents you will give them their exhibit number.

DR. THOMA: Yes, indeed.

Q. Will you give the Tribunal your biographical data ...?

THE PRESIDENT: Wait one minute, Dr. Thoma. For the purposes
of the record,

                                                  [Page 379]

you see, which is contained in the transcript, I think you
ought to read out a list of the documents which you are
putting in, stating what the exhibit numbers are. Have you
got a list there of the documents you are going to offer in
evidence?

DR. THOMA: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you just read it into the record?

DR. THOMA: Exhibit Ro-7, "The Myth of the Twentieth
Century."

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. THOMA: Ro-7a "Gestaltung der Idee" (Formation of the
Idea), Ro-7b Rosenberg, "Blut und Ehre" (Blood and Hdnour),
Ro-7c Rosenberg, "Tradition und Gegenwart" (Tradition and
our Present Age), Ro-7d Rosenberg, "Schriften und Reden"
(Writings and Speeches) and Ro-8 "Volkischer Beobachter,"
March and September, 1933.

THE PRESIDENT: That one was excluded by the Tribunal; Nos.
7e and 8 were excluded.

DR. THOMA: I did not cite 7e but Ro-8.

THE PRESIDENT: You cited 8 though.

DR. THOMA: Yes, I mentioned Ro-8 and I beg to apologise.

THE PRESIDENT: No. 8 is excluded too.

DR. THOMA: Yes.

BY DR. THOMA:

Q. Herr Rosenberg, please, give the Tribunal your
biographical data.

A. I was born on 12th January, 1893, in Reval in Estonia.
After graduating there from High School (Oberrealschule) I
began to study architecture in the autumn of 1910 at the
institute of Technology at Riga. When the German-Russian
front lines approached in 1915, the Institute of Technology,
including the professors and students, was evacuated to
Moscow and there I continued my studies. In January or
February, 1918, I finished my studies, and received a
diploma as an engineer and architect and returned to my
native city.

When the German troops entered Reval I tried to enlist as a
volunteer in the German Army but, because I was a citizen of
an occupied country, I was not accepted without special
recommendation. Since in the future I did not want to live
between the frontiers of several countries, I tried to get
to Germany.

To the Baltic Germans, notwithstanding their loyalty toward
the Russian State the Homeland of German culture was their
intellectual home, and the experience I had had in Russia
strengthened my decision to do everything within my power to
help to prevent the political movement in Germany from
backsliding into Bolshevism. I believed that this latter
movement in Germany, because of the sensitive structure of
the system of the German Reich, would have been a tremendous
catastrophe. At the end of November, 1918, I travelled to
Berlin, and from there to Munich. Actually, I wanted to take
up my profession as an architect, but in Munich I met people
who felt the way I did, and I became a staff member of a
weekly journal, which was founded at this time in Munich. I
worked on this weekly paper from January, 1918, and have
continued to write since that time. I lived in Munich
through the development of the political movement until the
Rate Republic in 1919 and its liquidation.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor