of war. The sworn affidavits of Huelse and the sworn affidavits of all the collaborators of Schacht in the Reich Ministry of Economy combine with this testimony of Vocke in that sense. I need not quote them individually. They are known to the Tribunal. The Tribunal does not need the commentary of a defense counsel. They speak for themselves. If the Prosecution now finally argues concerning the text of the Memorandum, which, it is true, actually only deals with financial problems, then I cannot omit the remark, that such an argumentation moves again in a vacuum, and does not take the experiences of history and the general experiences of life into consideration. Naturally-I have said it already -the Board of Directors of the Reichsbank could only operate with arguments which came under their department, particularly so if one had to deal with a Hitler. One beats the bag but one really means the donkey.

If the directorate of the Reichsbank and with it its President Schacht had not made public its true purpose in this Memorandum, namely to avert the danger of war and to combat Hitler's will of aggression, then it would have removed the effect of a specialist departmental influence from itself. Hitler very well understood the purpose of this Memorandum, when he shouted after reading it: "That is mutiny." With this Adolf Hitler recognized what can be said alone of Schacht as conspirator. He was never a mutineer and conspirator against world peace, but, so far as he was a conspirator and mutineer, he was this only against Adolf Hitler and his government.

As such, he was the subject of ironic belittling by General Jodl and my colleague Nelte in the epithets "Frockcoat and drawingroom revolutionary." Now history teaches that the quality of the tailor does not play any role in the case of the revolutionary. And as far as the drawing room is concerned, then the shacks have no revolutionary preference over the palaces. I only call to mind the political drawing-rooms of the great French Revolution or for instance (one of the many) the elegant officers' club of the feudal Preobraschenck regiment under many a Czar. Even if the Gentlemen are of the opinion that Schacht and his accomplices themselves should have done the shooting, then I can only say: Well, if it had only been that easy. Schacht would have loved to do the shooting himself; he exclaimed here spontaneously. But it would not go without power which would have pushed on during the confusion coming for certain afterward and which could bring the attempt to a revolutionary success.

Therefore generals with troops were necessary. I do not wish to repay General Jodl with the same coin and therefore do not say "a necessary evil."

The further reproach of the foundation lacking in the working class is contradicted by the social composition of the revolutionaries of 20 July. As I stated before, all this is irrelevant for the decision of this Tribunal. But my client has a moral right that his defense counsel does not completely ignore this polemic which took place in the spotlight of the world public.

In summing up it must therefore be said:

After the July elections in 1932 it was certain that Hitler would and was bound to seize power. Previously to this Schacht had expressively warned the foreign countries of this development, and therefore not contributed to it. After the seizure of power only two roads were open to him, as to every German: he either had to estrange himself or he had to enter the movement actively. The decision at these crossroads was a purely political one without any criminal aspect. Just as we respect the reasons which caused the foreign countries to collaborate with Hitler much more intensively and pro-Germanically than with the previous democratic governments of Germany, so we must recognize the good faith of all those Germans who believed themselves to be able to serve the country and humanity better because of the greater possibilities of exerting their influence within the movement, therefore, either within the Party or within the apparatus of officialdom, than by grumblingly standing aside. To serve Hitler as minister and President of the Reichsbank was a political decision, about whose political correctness one can now ex post facto argue, which however, lacked any criminal character. Schacht has always remained loyal to the motivating reason for his decision, namely to combat any radicalism from an influential position. Nowhere in the world did a warning signal appear for him. He only saw that the world trusted Hitler much longer than he himself, and permitted Adolf Hitler honors and foreign-political successes, which hampered Schacht's work, when it had already for a long time been directed at removing Adolf Hitler and his government. He led this struggle against Adolf Hitler and his government with a courage and a consequence, which must make it appear as a pure miracle that it was only after 20 July 1944 that the fate of the concentration camp and the danger of losing his head either through the People's Tribunal or through an act of the SS reached him. He is sufficiently clever and self-critical to refrain from escaping the realization that, from the purely political consideration, the picture of his character will waiver in history, or at least in the nearest future, confused by the favor and hatred of the parties. He humbly resigns himself to the judgment of history, even then, if one historian or another will label his political line as incorrect. With

the pride of a good conscience he resigns himself to the judgment of this High Tribunal. He stands before his judges with clean hands. He also stands before this Tribunal with the confidence, as he has already expressed in a letter which he addressed to this Tribunal before the beginning of the proceedings, and in which he expresses that he would regard with gratitude the exposing before this Tribunal and before the whole world publicity, of his actions and activity and its motivating reasons. He stands before this Tribunal with confidence because he knows that the favor and hatred of the parties will not have any effect in this Tribunal. In all self-recognition of the relativity of all political actions in such difficult times, he is still self-cognizant and full of confidence with regard to the criminal charges which have been raised against him, and this with justification. Because, no matter who would have to be found guilty of being criminally responsible for this war and the atrocities and inhumane acts committed in it, Schacht, according to the evidence which has been kept here with minute exactness, can shout the words to every culprit, which Wilhelm Tell shouts to the Kaiser-assassin Parricida! "I raise my clean hands to Heaven, and curse you and your deed." I therefore request the findings to established to the effect, that Schacht is not guilty of the accusation which has been raised against him and that he therefore is to be acquitted.

2. FINAL PLEA by Hjalmar Schacht

My feeling of justice was deeply wounded because of the fact that the final speeches of the prosecution completely bypassed the evidence resulting from this trial. The only accusation raised against me under the Charter is the allegation that I wanted war. The overwhelming amount of proof in my case has shown, however, that I was a fanatical opponent of war, and actively and passively, through protests, sabotage, cunning, and force, have tried to prevent this war.

How, then, can the Prosecution assert that I was in favor of war? How, then, can the Russian Prosecutor assert that I turned from Hitler only in 1943, after my first attempt at a coup d'etat had already been undertaken in the fall of 1938?

And, now, Justice Jackson, in his final speech, raised a new accusation against me which has not been mentioned in the trial at all up to the present moment. I was to have planned a release of Jews from Germany against a ransom in foreign currency. That, too, is untrue, disgusted with the Jewish pogrom of November 1938, I managed to obtain Hitler's approval to a plan which was to facilitate emigration of the Jews. I intended to transfer

1,500 million Reichsmarks from confiscated Jewish property, to the administration of an international committee, and Germany was to undertake the obligation to repay this amount to the committee in twenty yearly installments, and that in foreign currency; which is the exact opposite of what Justice Jackson asserted here.

In December 1938 in London, I discussed this plan with Lord Berstedt, of Samuel and Samuel, with Lord Winterton, and with the American representative, Mr. Rublee. They were all sympathetically disposed toward this plan. Having been removed from the Reichsbank shortly thereafter, however, this matter was dropped. Had it been carried through, no single German Jew would have lost his life.

My opposition to Hitler's policies was known at home and abroad, and that so clearly that even in the year 1940 the Attache of the United States, Mr. Kirk, before leaving his Berlin post, sent me his regards, adding that after the war I would be considered as an unburdened man, a matter which is reported on in detail by witness Huelse in his affidavit, which is 37-B of my document book.

Instead of that, however, the Prosecution for a whole year has branded me in the world press as a robber, murderer, and betrayer. And it is this accusation that I have to thank for standing alone at the eve of my life without means of subsistence and without a home. But the Prosecution is mistaken if they believe, as was mentioned in one of their first speeches, that they can count me amongst the pitiful and broken personalities.

Certainly I erred politically, but my economical and financial policy of creation of work by the assistance of credit has wonderfully proven itself, although I have never claimed to be a politician. The figure of unemployment dropped from 7,000,000 to zero. In the year 1938 the income of the State had risen to such an extent that the repayment of the Reichsbank credits was fully safeguarded. The fact that Hitler refused this repayment, so ceremoniously documented by him, was a tremendous betrayal which I could not foresee. My political mistake was not realizing the extent of Hitler's criminal nature at an early enough time. But not with one single illegal or immoral act did I stain my hands. The terror of the Gestapo did not frighten me; for every terror must fail when conscience is at stake. Here lies this great source of power which religion gives us.

In spite of that, Justice Jackson considered it proper to accuse me of opportunism and cowardice. And this, after the end of the war, found me in the Extermination Camp at Flossenberg, where I had been imprisoned for ten months, and where only by merciful

fate I escaped Hitler's order of murder. At the exit of this trial I stand with my soul deeply shaken about unspeakable suffering which I tried to prevent with all my personal effort and with all attainable means, a suffering which I could not prevent. But that is not through my guilt.

Therefore, my head is upright and I am unshaken in the belief that the world will recover, not through the force of power, but only through the force of mind and the morality of actions.

XIV. KARL DOENITZ

1. FINAL ARGUMENT by Otto Kranzbuehler,
Defense Counsel

Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Bench:

"War is a cruel thing and it brings in its train a multitude of injustices and misdeeds."

With those words of Plutarch's, Hugo Grotius begins his examination of the responsibility for war crimes and they are as true today as they were 2,000 years ago. At all times acts were committed by belligerents, which were war crimes or were considered as such by the other side. But the conclusions drawn from this fact were always to the prejudice of the vanquished parties and never to that of the victors. The law which was applied here was necessarily the right of the stronger.

While in land wars more or less steadfast rules were drawn up regulating warfare, in maritime wars the conceptions of the parties engaged have always clashed on the point of international law. Nobody knows better than British statesmen how much these conceptions are dictated by national or economic interests. I refer in this respect to noted witnesses such as Lord Fisher and Lord Edward Grey*. Therefore, if ever in history a naval power would have had the idea to prosecute a defeated enemy admiral, namely on grounds of his own conception of the rules of naval warfare, the sentence would have been pronounced simultaneously with the indictment.

*Lord Edward Grey. "25 Years of Politics, 1892-1916". Translation by Brueckmann, Munich 1926. "international law has always been elastic. * * * A belligerent with an overpowering navy has always advocated an interpretation of international law, justifying the maximum seizure of goods which may presumably reach the enemy. That viewpoint was naturally taken by Great Britain and the Allies due to their superiority at sea. The British attitude in this respect has not always been the same. When we were among neutrals, we naturally contested the right the belligerents claimed for themselves to make vast seizures."