[Page 368]

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]

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]

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]

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."

[Page 372]

"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.' "

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]

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."

"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."

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.

[ Previous | Index | Next ]

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