Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-13/tgmwc-13-119.09
Last-Modified: 2000/02/13

Q. So there will be no misunderstanding about that. And you
deny that von Blomberg was telling the truth, when he says
that he reported to you in writing those facts?

A. Yes, unfortunately I must deny it. Evidently he does not
remember.

Q. Now, you testified yesterday, or the day before, that the
so-called New Plan had nothing to do with the armament
programme, did you not?

A. Nothing in particular with armament.

Q. Oh, nothing in particular.

A. No. I mean, of course, that the Tribunal was expressly
asked whether I was to discuss the New Plan here and whether
it was to be discussed at your cross-examination. I am
prepared to inform you now about the New Plan before you -

Q. Now, Dr. Schacht you have no objection to answering my
questions, have you?

A. Certainly not.

Q. I am referring to the answer which you gave - the one
which you were not allowed to discuss.

  "Question: Some of your economic policies during the time
  you were Minister of Economy, which have been cited as
  being in preparation for war, were the so-called New
  Plan. What was that?"

                                                   [Page 34]

And your answer:

  "May I state first of all that the New Plan had nothing
  at all to do with rearmament."

And then you began going into an explanation of the New
Plan, which the Tribunal did not allow, and I am asking you
only this question:

Did you not say, in your speech on the Miracle of Finance,
on the 29th day of November, 1938, after quoting a great
number of figures, "These figures show how much the New Plan
contributed to the execution of the armament programme as
well as to the securing of our food."

Did you say that or didn't you?

A. Yes.

Q. That is Document 611-EC, Exhibit USA 622.

Q. Now, I understood you to say in your testimony that you
really didn't have anything to do socially with Hitler or
with the other Nazis, and that you refused their invitation
to luncheon at the Reichschancellery, and one of the chief
reasons was that those present showed such abject humility
to Hitler. Did you say that?

A. Yes.

Q. Now, I want to read to you from your speech, Document 501-
EC, your inaugural speech on
the occasion of the Fuehrer's birthday. This was a public
speech, by the way, wasn't it?

A. I don't know. I don't remember.

Q. You made a speech on the Fuehrer's birthday on 21st
April, 1937, published in the newspapers?

A. Maybe.

Q. "We are meeting together here to remember with respect
and love the man to whom the German people entrusted the
control of its destiny more than four years ago."

And then, after some other remarks, you say, "With the
limitless passion of a glowing heart and the infallible
instinct of a born statesman, Adolf Hitler, in a struggle
which he led for 14 years with calm logic, has won for
himself the soul of the German people."

Was that a part of your published and public speech?

A. I assume that you have quoted it quite correctly. I do
not believe that anyone, on the occasion of the birthday
celebration of the head of a State, could say anything very
much different. Mr. Justice Jackson, may I make one request.
You have completely passed over the New Plan, while the
Tribunal has pointed out that it was to be discussed here in
cross-examination. If you are not going to refer to the New
Plan, may I ask that the New Plan be discussed again in re-
examination by my counsel.

Q. I did not ask you what the New Plan was; I asked whether
your statement that it had nothing to do with armaments was
true or not. But if your counsel wants to ask about it, it
is open to ruling by the Tribunal. You quoted today Hitler's
letter of 19th January, 1939, in which you were dismissed
from the presidency of the Reichsbank, and you did not quote
the concluding sentence, as I recall it, which reads: "I am
happy to be able to avail myself of your services for the
solution of new tasks in your position as Reich Minister."
That is a correct quotation, is it not?

A. I refer to the testimony by the witness Gisevius, who has
already said that outwardly Hitler would never indicate that
there was dissension between himself and his officials, but
that he always attempted to give a false impression to the
world. After January, 1939, Hitler never asked for my
opinion or my co-operation.

Q. Were you asked by anyone else?

A. No. I cited the occasions when I was asked for assistance
this morning. That was in connection with Belgium and in
connection with the periodical Das Reich. I think that was
all.

                                                   [Page 35]

Q. And you performed no functions whatever in reference to
Belgium?

A. No.

Q. Now, I quote your letter of 17th October, 1940, to the
Reich Minister for Economics, Document 504-EC, Exhibit USA
830. At that time you had ceased to be President of the
Reichsbank, had you not?

A. Yes. I was only a Minister without portfolio.

Q. "So that the German banks in the occupied western
territories need not work side by side, or rather against
each other, you had assigned the Deutsche Bank the task of
clearing the way for closer economic co-operation with
Holland, and you entrusted the Dresdner Bank with the same
task for Belgium." And you go on to describe that situation
and say:

  "In order to remove this difficulty, you, Herr Reich
  Minister, have agreed that the undersigned comply with
  the requests of both banking houses for an objective
  expression of opinion in this question. I have
  subsequently discussed the situation with both banks, and
  it was confirmed in the course of the conversation, that
  at present there is no tendency on the part of Dutch or
  Belgian financial institutions to enter into general ties
  with the German business men."

Do you recall?

A. Yes, I remember it, now that you have read it to me. May
I make a statement, or what was your question?

Q. I just wondered if you remembered that.

A. Yes, and I ask permission to make a statement. It
concerns -

Q. If you think it needs explaining -

A. I would think so; but, of course, I leave that to the
Tribunal. If I may speak; it concerns a rivalry between two
large banks. Both these large banks approached me, as a
former banker and President of the Reichsbank, to decide the
matter, and I did. I really don't see what that has to do
with the official participation in the Belgian
administration.

Q. And the purpose of your intervention was to avoid
misunderstandings in the occupied country between the
banking interests of the occupied countries and the German
banks, was it not?

A. Certainly, they were to work together peacefully.

Q. Yes. Although you have said to the Tribunal that you were
entirely opposed. to the Germans being in there at all?

A. Of course. But now that they were there I tried to keep
peace.

Q. You also were approached by Krupp von Bohlen about
raising a fund known as the "Hitler spending fund," were you
not?

A. No.

Q. You never were?

A. Never.

Q. Well, that is most unfortunate - that your name should be
connected with -

A. Yes, I know the letter.

Q. You never received such a letter?

A. Yes, I know the letter, but I was not assigned the task
of raising that donation.

Q. Well, you assisted in raising it, didn't you?

A. No.

Q. Did you contribute to it?

A. I, personally, certainly not. I don't know what you are
accusing me of.

Q. I thought you knew about the letter from von Bohlen.

A. Yes, but I ask you of what are you accusing me. Please
tell me.

Q. Did you raise any money or help to organize a loan with
Krupp von Bohlen in May of 1933 - the Hitler spending fund?

A. No.

Q. How did you answer Krupp von Bohlen's letter asking you
to do so?

                                                   [Page 36]

A. Would you please remind me of what Krupp von Bohlen wrote
to me at the time?

Q. Have you the letter of 29th of May?

A. Yes, one moment, please, I have nearly finished. May I
reply now? From this - .

Q. First of all, did you receive such a letter?

A. Yes, of course.

Q. All right. Tell us what happened.

A. In that letter, Herr von Bohlen informed me that industry
and other economic circles, such as agriculture, etc.,
intended to organize a joint Hitler donation, in order to
combine in one collection the wild Party collections which
were making the entire country insecure. He informed me of
this, and also of the fact that a board of trustees was to
be appointed for this Hitler donation. I want to say that I
never joined the board of trustees and was not a member of
it. He further informed me that the representatives of the
banks, Dr. Fischer and Dr. Mosler, would contact me and
inform me about these things. That is all that the letter
says.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That I offer as Exhibit USA 831.

Q. Will you look at the following letter of 30th of May,
1933, which says they had the opportunity of mentioning it
to you?

A. One moment, please. I don't think the letter is in my
document book. No, it is not here.

(A paper was handed to the witness.)

Q. I asked you to read the letter 29th of May first; one of
the 29th May, and of the 30th. The 29th of May one has not
been translated.

A. I see. Just a minute. I read.

(Pause.) (Through the interpreter.) This letter never
reached me. It has been crossed out and apparently it was
not sent, because von Bohlen and I had a personal
conversation to which he refers in the letter of the
following day, the 30th of May; the letter begins: "As Dr.
Hottgen, and I had the opportunity of mentioning to you
yesterday... " That apparently was a personal conversation.

Q. Yes, and you had also said, "You were kind enough to
promise to obtain for me from Messrs. Otto Christian Fischer
and Dr. Mosler full particulars and especially information
as to how far banks, which are public corporations, can
participate in this task."

A. No, Mr. Justice Jackson, it does not say that in the
letter. Please, will you be good enough to read the letter
of the 29th of May? Where does it say that I spoke to Dr.
Fischer or would speak to Dr. Mosler?

Q. Do you deny receiving the letter of the 29th?

A. Yes.

Q. You never received it?

A. No.

Q. Do you deny having a conversation with Krupp von Bohlen-
Halbach, the substance of which is set forth in that letter?

A. No ... One moment. Please, let me answer. I do not wish
to be accused of anything without replying. I did not
receive that letter on the 29th of May, nor did I receive it
later. Instead, there was a personal conversation. The
subject of that conversation is contained in the letter of
May 30th, which we read before, and which I received. You
have just asserted that I had promised Krupp von Bohlen to
speak to Dr. Fischer and Dr. Mosler. The letter makes no
mention of that.

Q. Does it not say so in the memorandum which you say was
replaced by a conversation? That is what I am trying to ask
you.

A. At any rate, I did not promise to talk to the gentleman.

Q. Anything more you want to say?

A. No.

                                                   [Page 37]

Q. Now, yesterday, I think it was, you testified that you
had made public statements against the terror policy of the
regime, and in evidence you quoted from your Konigsberg
speech.

A. Yes.

Q. Unfortunately, Dr. Schacht, you stopped just at the point
where I got interested in it.

A. Yes, that is generally the case. (Laughing.)

Q. After you had stated that there are people who ran
Germany - let me quote the part you quoted, because it is
important in connection - .

A. Quote the whole thing.

Q. Yes. This is what you quoted:

  "Those are the people who heroically smear window-panes
  in the middle of the night, who brand every German who
  trades in a Jewish store as a traitor, who condemn every
  former freemason as worthless, and who, in the just fight
  against priests and ministers, who talk politics from the
  pulpit, cannot themselves distinguish between religion
  and misuse of the pulpit. The goal at which these people
  aim is generally correct and good."

That is what you quoted?

A. Yes.

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