The Nuremberg Interviews (41 page)

“Of course, in all of my difficulties which appear in letters and minutes you will never find any remark that I made saying that Hitler and Goering were driving toward war. I had no proof of it and if I had said so, they would have acted drastically against me. So, I could defend my position only by economic arguments. And now, these fools of prosecutors draw the following conclusions: ‘Because we do not find in any document an indication that Schacht wanted to get out because he was against war, the conclusion is that he was not against war but that he merely had quarrels with Goering.’ ” Again Schacht laughs in a rather forced, scornful manner.

“I laid no stress on remaining minister of economics. Hitler had asked me to take on that position and I accepted it at the time because I thought I could thereby assist my financial policy.”

I asked him why he allowed himself to be used by Hitler for four or five years until 1939 if he had such a low opinion of Hitler and the criminal Nazis, as he termed them. “It will be explained in the trial in the course of my defense. Germany could maintain her feeding and housing by export trade to some extent because we were short of food by about twenty percent, which we could not produce on our own soil. Therefore,
we had to export and earn money outside of Germany in order to get food. This has been so since the 1880s. Furthermore, in order to maintain our export industries, we had not only to buy foodstuffs, but we also had to purchase raw materials.

“Now what did the Treaty of Versailles do to us? It took away from Germany all of the private assets of Germans. Do you realize what this means, Dr. Goldensohn? It liquidated the private assets of German citizens, a thing which has not been done since medieval times. By this, they destroyed one of the foundations of our life. For example, if we had an import or export house in Rio de Janeiro or New York, they took away our license and put us out of business. Such losses amounted to $11 billion, aside from reparations. By doing this the Allies destroyed not only a half-billion-dollar income, but also spoiled our whole sales organization. Then, furthermore, after Versailles, they imposed reparation payments on Germany, and as we had no foreign assets anymore, we could only pay by new exports. How could we pay the Allies otherwise? Therefore, the need for export trade became more urgent since we needed foreign money in order to pay for food and raw material, as well as reparations. The reparations amounted to $50 billion in cash! Can you imagine that? That means fifty thousand million dollars.

“Now, of course, Germany could not do that. An annual amount of money and reparation payment was fixed at about a billion dollars a year, and we could not afford that. And then, you must recall that after the First World War we had for the most part socialist governments, and these socialists followed a very lighthearted policy. They borrowed money from the outside, and with that money they paid for reparations. Mostly, the money came from America, and so Germany contracted many foreign debts. During the six years 1924–29, our foreign debts were not less than $8 billion. That is exactly as much as the United States borrowed before the First World War over a period of four decades. And then came the movement when foreign creditors said that they couldn’t go on, and not only stopped lending but withdrew all short credits at maturity. This led to a financial crash of frightful proportions in the summer of 1931.
²

“Immediately after these credits were stopped, the economic situation of Germany became worse and worse. The Bruening government of the middle-class parties, the so-called bourgeois government, followed a deflationary policy. They cut wages and salaries so much that many
industries collapsed; and at the same time, the Allied countries had raised customs tariffs. Finally, we arrived at a situation of more than 6 million unemployed. Now if you take into consideration the fact that the farmer is never unemployed, but that only industrial folk are, it means that every third family suffered from unemployment. Therefore, people lost confidence in the socialists as well as in the middle-class parties and went to extremes.

“There was only the choice between Communism and Hitler, and I will tell you why Hitler won. People will not give up religion, rights, freedom of personality, the opportunity to develop by individual effort — which includes private property. And the other reason for Hitler’s winning is that if a whole people is treated as the Germans were, everyone will say, ‘Are we worse people than others? Are we of a minor race?’ Just as every single individual needs and must have self-respect, just as every family is proud of decent traditions, so every nation wants to maintain her individual manner, culture, language, and customs. It was in these respects that Communism failed. The Communists said that God was nonsense and stupidity and preached internationalism without maintaining the natural national feelings of a nation.

“And now along came Hitler and he affirmed both things which Communism denied. He proposed to safeguard the national dignity and to maintain religion. It is in his program.” I remarked that this was rather ironic since the German nation under Hitler lacked dignity and was the bloodiest regime in history, and since it persecuted religion of all types and even went so far as to exterminate entire religious sects, namely, the Jews. Schacht said, “Yes, today it is ironic, but then everyone believed him. Hitler betrayed everyone and he betrayed all his principles. He gave away religion and undid nationalism. But in July 1932, Hitler obtained forty percent of all the seats in the Reichstag.
³
It had never happened before in German history that one party received so many votes. Hitler obtained 230 seats and Bruening but 70 or 75. The Communists had about 70. There are about 600 seats in the Reichstag. It is evident therefore that Hitler alone had more than all other non-Communist parties put together.

“At that time, nobody knew what kind of a bad character Hitler was. No one expected that he would betray the nation.”

I asked Schacht whether he thought that it was not a particularly bad trait that Hitler was always violently anti-Semitic. He replied, “Nobody
took his anti-Semitism seriously. We thought it was a political propaganda issue and would be forgotten once he got into power. As for me, being a democratic man and accustomed to democratic methods, parliamentary procedure, I was left with no choice. Either all the other parties had to combine with the Communist Party, which neither the Communists nor the other parties desired, or the leadership had to be given to Hitler.”

Was there no particular objection to Hitler at the time? “I met Hitler for the first time in January 1931 and I never spoke to him or voted for him. But in July 1932 there he was, and one had to make the best of it because he was legally elected.” Who did he vote for? “I voted for a democratic party — the Bruening party was a Catholic one and I did not vote for that, but it was one of the parties that belonged to the Bruening coalition.

“Was there any other choice? What should I have done? I ask you, Dr. Goldensohn, where is the crime?” I replied that as an American, if he really wanted to know the honest answer to his questions, my opinion was that if he really disapproved of Hitler, he could have refused to enter the government; and in fact, since it was no mystery as to the type of fascist Hitler was, even as far back as 1925 after
Mein Kampf
was published, one could have told him to go to H. Schacht disagreed. “Yes, and if I told him to go to hell, I would have to retire to the position of a private citizen. I wanted to work for my country.” I said that I didn’t follow his argument because was it in the interest of Germany to have Hitler as its leader? “It turned out that it was not in Germany’s interest, but I did not know that at the time.” I proceeded along this theme and asked, if Hitler had succeeded in winning the war and in building a powerful fascist Germany, whether he would say that therefore Hitler was a desirable leader for the German nation. “You are implying that I am a fascist, but my dear doctor, there was only one way out, and that was to establish a military, nondemocratic type of government, and we tried that. You would be surprised. In December 1932, Hindenburg made General Schleicher chancellor after Papen was overthrown. And mind you, Papen was overthrown by the Reichstag and the Communists and by Hitler. But when Schleicher assumed the Chancellery, he found that to rule without parliament — that is, a government by military force — would lead to civil war. The Schleicher government lasted not quite two months. When they saw that rule by
such methods would lead to civil war, they abandoned it and changed their minds.

“Then Hindenburg was obliged to accept Hitler in order to remain within parliamentary lines. In order not to let him reign alone, small parties of the right made a coalition with him, in order to participate with Hitler in the government, and to influence him thereby. In the elections of March 5, 1933, the National Socialists alone obtained 280 seats, which was very near the absolute majority, even if you include the Communists.
⁴

“All of this was done within the lines of the Weimar constitution — along democratic parliamentary lines.” I said that I was very much interested in Schacht’s observations and opinions. But was he sure of his facts? It seemed to me that Hitler already had some strong-arm organizations, such as the SA and SS, by that time. I asked him whether there were not some elements of coercion about the elections. Schacht replied, “If so, am I to blame for that?” I said that I had not implied that he was to blame for it, but he had made the statement that everything “had been done along democratic parliamentary lines.” Schacht said, “I believe there was an SA and SS operating, but I mean that the elections themselves were seemingly fair.”

I said it was puzzling to me that Schacht seemed to ignore the fact that Hitler had written
Mein Kampf
and that in it were contained the Führer principles and the concept of the
Volk
, and anti-Semitism, and national superiority, and inferiority ideas, and similar fascistic matters. Schacht said, “Yes, you can blame me for going into it in the first place, but don’t forget that political activities and actions are complex. People said that once Hitler achieved power, he would find himself up against so many hindrances he would never be able to accomplish his fascistic ideas.

“There is another consideration. Can you check him better by retiring and living as a private citizen and leaving him with sole power? Or isn’t it much wiser to get involved and try to check him? I mean, to see how far you can influence him. That is what all of the men who remained in the cabinet did. By the way, I was not in the cabinet. But there were Papen, Neurath, and others who remained. I myself never entered the government previously because I never wanted anything to do with party politics.

“I was offered a seat in the Reichstag when I was about twenty-six years of age, and I declined. And a good many times later I declined
also.” I asked Schacht from what district he had been offered this seat in the Reichstag, and he replied, “Oh, several. Elections were not by districts but by lists. Once I was to be from Westphalia, another time from Schleswig-Holstein. Residency made no difference.

“So I took the post as president of the Reichsbank because it was an independent position, as I told you. Then Hitler managed, within the cabinet of which I was not a member, to establish his totalitarian state.” I remarked that it was then, after Hitler managed to establish a totalitarian state, that Schacht accepted a cabinet ministry. Schacht hastened to explain. “Yes, I became minister of economics in August 1934 after Hitler had been given the two powers of the chancellery and the presidency after Hindenburg’s death. But strange to say, my nomination was signed by Hindenburg and it was the last official document that Hindenburg signed.” Was that document still available? “I once had it, but it is now in Russian hands, I think. It was handed to me two days after Hindenburg’s death.” Why did he think or how did he know it was in Russian hands? “I don’t know.”

Was it not true that Hitler’s ruthlessness was apparent before 1937? “His amoral policy was apparent and my suspicions began in 1935 or thereabouts. I have taken every opportunity to oppose him in all of these unlawful matters, such as his persecution of the churches, the Gestapo, the Jewish question, and everything else that was against common human decency. I opposed him on these points, publicly and privately and personally to his face. Believe me or not, I was the only man who did it. No clergyman, no politician, scientist, or businessman would have dared to say to him what I publicly and privately said.

“What is the crime? Where is it?

“When I felt that he was aiming at war, I retired from the ministry. He insisted that he would accept my resignation only on the condition that I should remain minister without portfolio. His aim was to show the world that there was not any conflict between his criminal government and a responsible economist and banker who had great influence abroad — myself. Otherwise, he would not accept my resignation. And further, I stopped credits on the Reichsbank. What else could I do? Where is the crime?

“They accuse me only of planning aggressive war. In 1938 Hitler dismissed his chief of the army, General Fritsch, one of the best characters we had in the army. And he dismissed Neurath, which means he dismissed
the chiefs of foreign policy and of the army.
⁵
Now, when I noticed that, I was sure that this man did not want to avoid war, although I knew nothing about his various communications, which were revealed later to leading military figures, that he was actually aiming and preparing for war.

“Hitler at that time was at the height of his successes in foreign policy. The foreigners had added to his success and glory to such an extent that considering the sentiments of the whole people and the younger military circles, the generals were afraid not to find the proper support. So it was Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier who saved Hitler and Nazism. That is what you might call the irony of history. Now, where is the crime? And the prosecution knows all of that. They know it. I don’t think they are fooled, but they are malevolent.