Afternoon Session (continued 2)

Now that you addressed to Göring, did you not?

SCHACHT: That is perfectly possible. I cannot remember the letter, but it looks quite like one of mine.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; and you were correctly giving to Göring your true views; were you not?

SCHACHT: No; I believe that this was merely a tactical letter. I think that I was mainly trying to limit armament. If I had told him that we wanted to stop arming, Göring would probably have denounced me to the Führer accordingly. Therefore I told him, “Let’s stop for the time being”—temporary. I also emphasize “temporary.” It was a tactical measure to convince Göring that for the time being it should be temporary.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Then, with your fellow officers in the Government you were also using tactical statements which did not represent your true views?

SCHACHT: That was absolutely necessary.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: When did it cease to be necessary, Dr. Schacht?

SCHACHT: Cease?

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes; when did it cease to be necessary?

SCHACHT: I think it more important to ask when it commenced; when it started.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well?

SCHACHT: During the first years I did not do it, of course, but later on I did to a considerable extent. I could say always; it never stopped.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Has it stopped now?

SCHACHT: I have no more colleagues, and here before this Tribunal I have nothing to tell but the truth.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, on the 24th of September, 1935—December—you wrote EC-293, which is Exhibit Number USA-834, and used this language, did you not:

“If there is now a demand for greater armament, it is, of course, not my intention to deny or change my attitude, which is in favor of the greatest possible armament and which I have expressed for years both before and since the seizure of power; but it is my duty to point out the economic limitations of this policy.”

SCHACHT: That is very good.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: And that is true?

SCHACHT: Certainly.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, there came in the Four Year Plan in 1936?

SCHACHT: Yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You did not like the appointment of Göring to that position?

SCHACHT: I thought he was unsuited and, of course, it made an opening for a policy which was opposed to mine. I knew perfectly well that this was the start of exaggerated armament, whereas I was in favor of restricted rearmament.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Why do you say that Göring’s appointment meant exaggeration of armament? Can you point to anything that Göring has said in favor of rearmament that is any more extreme than the things you have said?

SCHACHT: Oh yes.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, will you do it?

SCHACHT: Yes, I think if you read the record of the so-called “small Ministerial Council,” of the year 1936, and in particular 1938, which you yourself introduced, you will see at once that here the necessity of increased armament was emphasized. For instance, those of November or October 1936, I think.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, it was also emphasized in your documents, was it not, throughout?

SCHACHT: No.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You say that your statements of that sort were merely tactical.

SCHACHT: No, I beg your pardon. I said arm within the limits of what is economically possible and reasonable. Göring, if I may say it again, wanted to go beyond those limits.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: That is exactly the point I want to make. Your difference with Göring over rearmament was entirely a question of what the economy of Germany would stand, was it not?

SCHACHT: No. I said that the most important thing was that Germany should live and have foreign trade, and within those limits we could arm. However, it is out of the question that Germany should arm for the sake of arming, and thus ruin her economy.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well that’s the difference between you and Göring; it was over what the economy would stand, was it not?

SCHACHT: No, it was a question of the extent of rearmament. The point is, Mr. Justice Jackson, that German economy paid the price for Göring’s action. The only question is, was it reasonable or unreasonable? If I may state it pointedly, I would say that I considered Göring’s economic policy to be unreasonable and a burden to the German nation; while I considered it most important that rearmament should not be extended and that the German nation should have a normal, peacetime standard.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.

[The Tribunal adjourned until 3 May 1946 at 1000 hours.]

TRANSCRIBER NOTES

Punctuation and spelling have been maintained except where obvious printer errors have occurred such as missing periods or commas for periods. English and American spellings occur throughout the document; however, American spellings are the rule, hence, “Defense” versus “Defence”. Unlike Blue Series volumes I and II, this volume includes French, German, Polish and Russian names and terms with diacriticals: hence Führer, Göring, Kraków, and Ljoteč etc. throughout.

Although some sentences may appear to have incorrect spellings or verb tenses, the original text has been maintained as it represents what the tribunal read into the record and reflects the actual translations between the German, English, French, and, most specifically with this volume, Russian documents presented in the trial.

An attempt has been made to produce this eBook in a format as close as possible to the original document presentation and layout.

[The end of Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal Vol. 12, by Various.]