Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-18/tgmwc-18-178.04
Last-Modified: 2000/09/19

By DR. DIX, Continued:

The prosecution further attempted to base its charges on
actions of Schacht which had been determined beyond reason
of doubt. All these arguments of the prosecution are based
on false conclusions from allegedly incriminating
circumstances. I shall confine myself to an enumeration of
the most essential false

                                                  [Page 369]

conclusions. The others either follow directly from these of
necessity, or are analogous to them.

Schacht was opposed to the Treaty of Versailles, says the
prosecution. That he was, indeed. The prosecution does not
hold this opposition in itself against him. However, it
concludes from this that Schacht wanted to do away with this
treaty by force. Schacht favoured colonial activity, says
the prosecution. He did so indeed. They do not reproach him
for this, either, but conclude from this fact that he wanted
to conquer the colonies by force, and so it goes on.

Schacht co-operated with Hitler as President of the
Reichsbank and Minister of Economy, consequently he endorsed
Nazi ideology. Schacht was a member of the Reich Defence
Council, consequently he was in favour of a war of
aggression. Schacht helped to finance rearmament during its
first phase until early in 1938, consequently he wanted war.
Schacht welcomed union with Austria, consequently he
approved of a policy of violence against that country.
Schacht devised the "New Plan" in commercial policy,
consequently he wanted to procure raw materials for
armament. Schacht was concerned about the possibilities of
increasing the opportunities to the surplus population in
Central Europe for making a living, consequently he wanted
to attack and conquer foreign countries and to annihilate
foreign peoples. Over and over again Schacht warned the
world against an anti-German policy of oppression and the
moral defamation of Germany, consequently Schacht threatened
war. Because no written evidence has been found that Schacht
resigned from his official positions as a result of his
antagonism to war, the conclusion is that he resigned from
these official positions merely because of his rivalry with
Goering.

The list of these false conclusions could be continued as
long as one likes. It finds its culmination in the fallacy
that Hitler would never have come to power if it had not
been for Schacht, that Hitler would never have been able to
rearm if Schacht had not helped. But, gentlemen, this kind
of evaluation of evidence would condemn an automobile
manufacturer because the driver of a car, while drunk, ran
over a pedestrian.

In his speeches or writings, Schacht never advocated
violence or even war. It is certain that after Versailles he
pointed out again and again the dangers which would result
from the moral outlawing and economic exclusion of Germany.
In this opinion he is in the best international company. It
is not necessary for me to cite before this Tribunal the
numerous voices, not of Germans, but of members of the
victorious States, beginning soon after the Versailles
Treaty, which uttered the same warnings as Schacht.
Moreover, the correctness of this warning will be absolutely
valid for all time. At no time did Schacht recommend, or
even declare possible, other ways than those of a peaceful
understanding and collaboration. As an avowed economic
politician, it was clearer to him than to anybody else that
a war could never solve anything, even if the war were won.
In all Schacht's utterances, his pacifist attitude was
expressed again and again; perhaps the shortest and most
striking of them was that statement at the Berlin Congress
of the International Chamber of Commerce, when Schacht in
the presence of Hitler, Goering and other heads of the
Government called out to the assembly: "Believe me, my
friends, nations want to live and not to die." This
pronounced pacifist attitude of Schacht, indeed, is likewise
confirmed by all witnesses and affidavits.

For the few in the world - and I purposely say in the world
and not only in Germany - who from the very beginning
recognized Hitler and his Government for what they really
were, it certainly was an anxiety and a sorrow, at the very
least a puzzle to see a man like Schacht placing his
services and his great professional ability at the disposal
of Adolf Hitler after he had come to power. The witness
Gisevius also shared this anxiety, as he has testified here.
Later on he convinced himself of Schacht's honourable
intentions through the latter's antagonistic and courageous
behaviour in the years 1938 and 1939. In his interrogation
Schacht outlined for us the reasons which caused him to act
in this manner. I need not, and, in the desire to save time,
I do not wish to repeat them. The

                                                  [Page 370]

evidence has not shown anything which impugns the veracity
of this presentation by Schacht. In fact, it reveals the
contrary. I need only refer, for example, the affidavit of
State Secretary Schmid, Exhibit 411 of my document book,
which contains detailed statements on this subject on Page
a, which are in complete agreement with Schacht's
description. A consideration of the remaining testimony,
'and affidavits as a whole leads to the same result. In
order to understand the: manner in which Schacht acted at
that time directly after the seizure of power as well as
later, when he had recognized the real Hitler and realised
the disastrous' nature of his policies, it is absolutely
necessary to gain a clear picture of Adolf Hitler's
pernicious sorcery and of his system of government. For both
are the soil from which Schacht's actions grew, and by which
alone they can be explained. I realize that one could speak
about this for days and write volumes about it, if:'. one
wished to treat the subject exhaustively. However, I also
realize that before, this Tribunal short references and
spotlight vignettes will be sufficient in order to gain the
Tribunal's understanding. ,

The disintegrating collapse of imperial. Germany in the year
1918 presented the German people, which had never become an
organized body, with a parliamentary-democratic form of
constitution. I venture the assertion that all political
thinking which is not directed by selfish motives must
strive for democracy, if by this is also understood the
protection of justice, tolerance against those of different
convictions, freedom of thought, as well as the political
development of humanity. These are the highest ideals of all
time, which, however, in their corresponding constitutional
forms, actually harbour dangers for themselves. If, when
democracy appeared for the first time on the European
Continent, reactionary political thinkers such as Count
Metternich and the like, opposed every democratic impulse,
then they did this because they saw only the dangers of
democracy and not its humanising qualities and its
historical necessity. In referring to these dangers, they
were unfortunately right. Perhaps the cleverest nation which
ever lived, the ancient Greeks, had already pointed out the
danger of democracy developing through demagogy to tyranny;
and probably all philosophical, political thinkers from
Aristotle to Thomas Aquinas, up to the present time, have
pointed out the danger of this development. This danger
becomes all the greater if democratic freedom in the
theoretical, constitutional sense does not arise and grow
organically, but becomes more or less a chance gift to a
nation.

"En fait d'histoire il vaut mieux continuer que
recommencer," a great French thinker has said.
Unfortunately, this has made Germany the latest, and, it is
to be hoped, the last example of a tyranny of one single
despot established by means of a diabolical demagogy. For
there is no doubt, the Hitler regime was the despotism of an
individual, whose parallel is only to be found in Asia at a
time which is far behind us. In order to understand the
attitude of any individual toward this Government, not only
that of Schacht, not only that of any German, but that of
any person generally, or of any government in the world
which has collaborated with Hitler - and such collaboration,
based on confidence on the part of the foreign countries,
was much greater towards Hitler than towards any government
of the so-called interim-Reich or of the so-called State of
the Weimar Constitution - it is, therefore, necessary to
analyse the personality of this despot, this political pied
piper, this brilliant demagogue, who, as Schacht testified
here in his interrogation with understandable agitation, not
only betrayed him, but also the German people and the whole
world. In order to accomplish this betrayal, Hitler was
forced to bring under the spell of his personality
innumerable clever and politically trained individuals
besides Schacht, even from outside the German frontiers. He
succeeded in doing this with many prominent foreigners, many
of whom were in leading political positions.

I shall refrain from citing names and quotations to prove
this point. The fact is generally known to the Tribunal. I
shall omit the next lines and continue on line 10 of the
same page. How was this influence of Hitler possible both in

                                                  [Page 371]

Germany and abroad? In Germany, all the circumstances of the
conditions prevailing at that time which have been described
here in evidence by Schacht as well as others favoured this
influence. The complete collapse of the parliamentary party
system and the resulting necessity, then already felt by the
existing Government, of having to govern by emergency
decrees enacted without parliamentary participation, and
thus establishing a dictatorship of the ministerial
bureaucracy as a forerunner of the Hitler dictatorship,
produced in nearly every quarter a cry for stronger
leadership. The economic crisis and unemployment opened the
ears of the masses, as misery always does, to demagogic
insinuations. The complete lethargy and inactivity of the
middle and leftist parties of the time also created among
critical and intelligent observers, of whom Schacht
assuredly was one, readiness and longing to welcome spirited
political "dynamics" and activity. If one as sharp-witted
and perspicacious as Schacht saw faults and dark patches at
that time, he could believe, and Schacht did believe, that
he could, by active penetration into the movement or by co-
operation with leading State departments, quickly and easily
combat these shady aspects, which are the concomitants of
every revolutionary movement. "When the eagle soars, noxious
insects settle on its wings," replied the late Minister of
Justice Guertner, quoting from Conrad Ferdinand Mayer's
Pescara, when I pointed out these shady sides to him after
the seizure of power. These considerations are in themselves
reasonable and plausible. The fact that they contained a
political error, even in Schacht's case, does not prevent
them being expressions of good faith and honest convictions.

However, we do not wish to forget that here, during the
proceedings, we heard a message from the American Consul
General Messersmith, dating from 1933, in which he joyfully
hails the report that decent and sensible people are now
joining the Party, too, as it gave reason to hope that this
would do away with radicalism. I refer to the document
submitted here by the prosecution: Document 1184, Exhibit L-
198, a report by the American Consul General Messersmith to
the Secretary of State in Washington.

  "Since the election on March 5th, some of the more
  important thinking people in various parts of Germany
  have allied themselves with the National Socialist
  movement, in the hope of tempering its radicalism by
  their action within rather than without the Party."

But what Messersmith very reasonably says of ordinary Party
members of that time naturally applies also, mutatis
mutandis, to the man who offered his co-operation in a
leading government post. The reasons Schacht gave for his
decision at the time to accept the post of President of the
Reichsbank and later of Minister of Economy are, therefore,
thoroughly credible in themselves and have no immoral or
criminal implication. Schacht, indeed, has acknowledged this
co-operation. He only lacked the intuition to recognize at
the outset the personalities of Hitler and some of his
henchmen for what they were. But that is no punishable
offence, and neither does it indicate any criminal
intention. This intuition was lacking in most people both
within and without the German frontiers. Intuition is a
matter of good luck and an irrational divine gift. Every man
has his limitations, even the most intelligent. Schacht is
certainly very intelligent, but with him intelligence
excluded intuition. In conclusion, this circumstance can
only be fully understood when those mysterious forces are
taken into account which affect world events and of which
Wallenstein says: "The earth belongs to the evil spirit, not
to the good" where he talks of "the sinister powers of evil
which lurk in the darkness." Adolf Hitler was a prominent
example of these powers of darkness and his influence was
all the worse since he lacked any Satanic grandeur. He
remained a half-educated, completely material petty
bourgeois who also was lacking in any sense of justice.
Defendant Frank said truly of him that he hated jurists
because the jurist appeared to him as a disturbing factor
against his power. Thus, he could promise everything to
everybody and not keep his promise, which to him meant only
a technical instrument of power and involved no legal or
moral obligation. Neither was the pernicious influence of
Himmler and Bormann detected by Schacht

                                                  [Page 372]

at that time, or probably by anybody else. Nevertheless, all
those crimes that are now under indictment matured within
this trio. To Himmler politics were identical with murder,
and, in his purely biological view of human society, her
regarded it as a breeding farm, never as a social and
ethical community. A personality like Adolf Hitler and its
effect upon men, even including such intelligent men as
Schacht, can only be correctly judged by following the
prophetic vision of the poet, as I have already just tried
to do, and penetrating into spheres of knowledge generally
closed to the reasoning power of men. The Demoniac
undoubtedly became incarnate in Adolf Hitler to the
detriment of Germany and the world, and; to sum up, I will
here - and this is absolutely necessary for an understanding
of Schacht's conduct, as well as that of all those others
who deliberately and in all purity of heart offered their
services to Hitler - quote a passage from our Gothe, which
expresses it all in a few words and discloses the mystery.
Here lies the key to the understanding of all those
followers of Hitler. May I quote from Fantasy and Fact, Part
4, Book 20, as follows:

  "Although the Demoniac can manifest itself in everything
  material and immaterial and indeed be most obviously
  apparent in the beasts, it most usually stands in the
  most wonderful association with man, and constitutes a
  power that is not opposed to, yet is a disturbing element
  in the moral world order. There are innumerable names for
  the phenomena which are brought to light in this way. For
  all philosophies and religions have tried, both in prose
  and in poetry, to solve this riddle and to dispose of the
  matter once and for all, which they may continue to do in
  the future, also. But the Demoniac assumes its most
  dreadful form when it appears in an overwhelming measure
  in any human being. During my lifetime I have had
  occasion to observe several such persons, either closely
  or from afar. They are not always the most distinguished
  persons, either in intellect or in talent, and they are
  seldom recommended by their goodness of heart, but a
  tremendous force emanates from them, and they exercise an
  incredible power over every creature, yes, even over the
  elements, and who can tell how far such influence will
  extend. No coalition of moral forces can prevail against
  them; it is in vain that the better part of humanity
  attempts to put them in disrepute as victims of deception
  or as impostors. The masses are attracted by them. They
  seldom or never find contemporary equals, and nothing
  short of the Universe itself, against which they began
  the fight, can overcome them; and these observations may
  perhaps have inspired that curious but terrible saying
  'Nemo contra Deum, nisi Deus ipse.' "

I think I have demonstrated that the fact that he served
Hitler does not incriminate Schacht in any criminal way, and
that it can by no means be concluded from this fact that at
that time he included the criminal deeds of Hitler and his
regime among his plans. He did not even think them possible.
Therefore, he possessed no "dolus eventualis" either: on the
contrary, if the violent character of the regime disturbed
him, he believed he would be able, through his appointment
to an important post, to contribute to the abolition and
prevention of those attendant phenomena of which he
disapproved, and to aid Germany's recovery within his sphere
of activity in a decent, peaceful manner.

But even if it were true that he had not only served Hitler
after the seizure of power, but also had helped him to seize
power, not the slightest reproach could be made against him.
This latter charge is, therefore, completely immaterial as
evidence of criminal behaviour or of criminal intention
(dolus). However, there is no need for this argument at all,
since as a matter of fact Schacht did not help Hitler to
power. Hitler was in power when Schacht began to work for
him.

Hitler's victory was already in his pocket when the July
elections of the Reichstag in 1932 brought him no less than
230 mandates. These represented about 40 per cent of the
total votes. There had been no such election result for any
party for' decades. But the immediate political future was
thereby established with a government headed by Hitler,
thanks to the rules of the German democratic

                                                  [Page 373]

constitution and every democratic constitution. Every other
path was beset with the danger of civil war.

It was natural that Schacht, who at that time honestly
believed in Hitler's political mission, did not wish to take
this path. It was likewise natural that he should become an
active participant when he believed that thereby he would be
able to prevent harmful radicalism in the economic-political
field. A wise French statesman says:

  "Every era confronts us in some way with the task of
  creating advantages or preventing abuses. For this
  reason, in my opinion, a patriotic man can and must serve
  any government which his country appoints."

If he served Hitler, Schacht, in his opinion, was serving
his country and not Hitler. This opinion may have been as
erroneous as possible, and subsequently it has revealed
itself completely false as far as Hitler was concerned, yet
Schacht can in no case be criminally charged for acting as
he did at that time, neither directly nor circumstantially.
And, indeed, we must also not forget that the Hitler of 1933
not only seemed to be a different man from the Hitler of
1938, or even of 1941, but actually was different. Schacht
has already referred during his interrogation to this
transformation, which was caused by the venom of worship by
the masses. Moreover, the transformation of such
personalities is a psychological law. History proves this in
Nero, Constantine the Great and many others. In the case of
Hitler, there exist many irreproachable witnesses for the
truth of this fact, irreproachable in the sense that a
purpose or an intention to violate the law, to raise
terrorism to a principle and to attack mankind with a war of
aggression, can never be imputed to them. I merely wish to
quote a few of them. I could multiply the quotations a
hundredfold. In 1934, Lord Rothermere wrote an article in
the Daily Mail, entitled: "Adolf Hitler from Close By." I
quote only a few sentences:

  "The most prominent figure in the world today is Adolf
  Hitler ... Hitler stands in direct line with those great.
  leaders of mankind who seldom appear more than once in
  two or three centuries ... it is delightful to see that
  Hitler's speech has considerably brightened his
  popularity in England."

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Dix, I thought the Tribunal had refused
to allow the writings of Lord Rothermere to be used.

DR. DIX: I beg your pardon?

THE PRESIDENT: I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow
the - Can you hear me now?

DR. DIX: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I thought the Tribunal had refused to allow
the writings of Lord Rothermere to be put in evidence or used.

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