In his speech on 29 November 1938, Schacht announced that Reichsbank's credit policy made it possible for Germany to create an “unsurpassed machine, and, in turn, this war machine made possible the realization of the aims of our policy" (EC-611, USA-622).

One must exclude the supposition that Schacht was not informed as to what purposes these weapons were to serve since he could not but take into consideration their unprecedented scale and an obvious. preference for offensive types of weapons, heavy tanks, bombers, and so on. Besides, Schacht knew perfectly well that not a single country intended to wage war on Germany nor had it any reasons to do so.

(a) Schacht utilized the military might growing under his direction to back Germany's territorial demands which grew in proportion to the increase in armaments.

Schacht testified in court that "at first he confined himself (in his demands) to the colonies which had once belonged to Germany" (Transcript, morning session, 3 May 1946).

In September 1934, during his talk with the American Ambassador Dodd, Schacht pointed out that he "desired annexation if possible without war, but through war, if the U. S. would stay out of it” (EC-461, USA-58).

In 1935, Schacht announced to the American Consul Fuller: "Colonies are essential to Germany. If it is possible, we shall acquire them through negotiations; if not, we shall seize them" (EC-450, USA-629).

Schacht admitted in Court that military pressure put upon Czechoslovakia was "in some measure the result and the fruit of his labor" (Transcript, morning session, 3 May 1946).

(b) Schacht personally participated in the plunder of private and state property of the countries which became victims of Hitlerite aggressions.

The minutes of the conference of the Military-Economic Staff on 11 March 1938, in which Schacht participated, state that those present were given Hitler's latest directives about the invasion of Austria. Further, the minutes state that: "After this, at the suggestion of Schacht, it was decided that . . . all the financial accounting will be made in Reichmarks at the rate of exchange: 2 shillings for 1 Reichsmark" (EC-421, USA-645).

Schacht admitted in court that he personally was in charge of the seizure of the Czechoslovak National Bank after the occupation of Czechoslovakia (Transcript, morning session, 3 May 1946).

(c) At the beginning of 1940, Schacht offered Hitler his services for negotiations with the United States in regard to the discontinuance of aid to England and he informed Goering of his offer (PS3700, USA-780).

(d) Schacht considered it his duty to greet and congratulate Hitler publicly after the signing of armistice with France, although Schacht, better than anyone else, understood the usurpatory nature of the armistice (German documentary film USA-635).

(e) In his letter to Funk on 17 October 1941, Schacht suggested a more effective exploitation of occupied territory. In this case, too, Schacht acted on his own initiative (EC-504, USA-830).

Schacht also participated in the persecution of the Jews:

(a) He testified in court that he "agreed to the policy of the persecution of the Jews as a matter of principle" (Transcript, afternoon session, 2 May 1946). Although, he stated, "to a certain extent" it was a matter of conscience which, however, "was not serious enough to bring about a break" between him and the Nazis (Transcript, afternoon session, 2 May 1946; USA-–616).

(b) In his capacity of Minister of Economy, Schacht signed a series of decrees, in accordance with which the property of the Jews in Germany was subject to plunder with impunity (USA-832 and USA616). Schacht confirmed in Court the fact that he had signed a series of antisemitic decrees (Transcript, afternoon session, 2 May 1946).

As to the reasons for Schacht's resignation from the post of the Ministry of Economy. and the Plenipotentiary General for War Economy in November 1937, and also from the post of the president of the Reichsbank on 20 November 1939, and finally from the post of the Minister without Portfolio in January 1943, the evidence submitted established the following:

(a) The reason is not Schacht's disagreement with the economic preparation for aggressive wars.

Three weeks before leaving the Ministry of Economy and the post of Plenipotentiary General for War Economy, Schacht wrote to Goering: "... I also don't consider that my opinion can differ from yours on economic policy . . ." (EC-497, USA-775).

In his reply Goering states: You promised me your support and collaboration . . . You have repeated this promise many times, even after differences of opinion began to creep up between us" (EC-493, USA-642).

Schacht testified in court that Goering and he "differed in matters of procedure" (Transcript, morning session, 3 May 1946).

In the preliminary examination Goering testified that Schacht's leaving the Reichsbank "had no relation to the program of rearmament" (USA-648).

The vice president of the Reichbank, Puhl, confirmed that Schacht's resignation from the Reichbank can be explained by "his desire to extricate himself from a dangerous situation" which developed as the result of Schacht's own crooked financial operations (EC-438, USA-646).

(b) The reason is not Schacht's disapproval of mass terror conducted by the Hitlerites.

The witness for the defense, Gesevius, testified that he constantly. informed Schacht of the criminal actions of the Gestapo, created by Goering, and that nevertheless, right up to the end of 1936, Schacht looked for "Goering's support" (Transcript, morning session, 24 April 1946).

In his letter to von Blomberg on 24 December 1935, Schacht suggested that the Gestapo apply "more cautious methods" since the open terror of the Gestapo "hinders the objectives of the armament” (Transcript, afternoon session, 2 May 1946).

On 30 January 1937, Schacht was awarded a golden party insignia by Hitler (EC-500, Transcript, afternoon session, 2 May 1946). As stated in an official German publication, "he was able to be of greater help to the party than if he were actually a member of the party" (EC-460, USA-617).

Only in 1943, having understood earlier than many other Germans, the inevitability of the failure of the Hitler regime, did Schacht establish contact with the opposition circles, however, doing nothing to help depose this regime. Therefore, it was not by chance that having found out these connections of Schacht, Hitler still spared Schacht's life.

It is thus indisputably established that:

(1) Schacht actively assisted in the seizure of power by the Nazis.

(2) During a period of 12 years Schacht closely collaborated with Hitler.

(3) Schacht provided the economic and financial basis for the creation of the Hitlerite military machine.

(4) Schacht prepared Germany's economy for the waging of aggressive wars.

(5) Schacht participated in the persecution of Jews and in the plunder of territories occupied by the Germans.

Therefore, Schacht's leading part in the preparation and execution of the common criminal plan is proved.

The decision to acquit Schacht is in obvious contradiction with existing evidence.

II. THE UNFOUNDED ACQUITTAL OF DEFENDANT VON PAPEN

The verdict does not dispute the fact that von Papen prepared the way for Hitler's appointment to the post of the Reichskanzler and that he actively helped Nazis in their seizure of power.

In a speech of 2 November 1933, von Papen said the following on the subject:

just as I at the time of taking over the Chancellorship (this was in 1932) have advocated to pave the way to power for the young fighting liberation movement, just as I on 30 January was selected by a gracious fate to put the hands of our Chancellor and Fuehrer into the hands of our beloved Field Marshal, so do I today again feel the obligation to say to the German People and all those who have kept confidence in me:

"The kind Lord has blessed Germany by giving it in times of deep distress a leader. . . ." (PS-3375).

It was von Papen who revoked Bruning's order dissolving the SS and the SA, thus allowing the Nazis to realize their program of mass terror (D-631).

Again it was the defendant who, by the application of brute force, did away with the Social Democrat Government of Braun and Severing (Severing's testimony, transcript, afternoon session, 14 June 1946).

On 4 January 1933, von Papen had a conference with Hitler, Hess, and Himmler (D-632).

Von Papen participated in the purge of the state machinery of all personnel considered unreliable from the Nazi point of view; on 21 March 1933, he signed a decree creating special political tribunals; he had also signed an order granting amnesty to criminals whose crimes were committed in the course of the "national revolution;" he participated in drafting the text of the order "insuring party and state unity;" and so on.

Subsequently von Papen faithfully served the Hitler regime.

After the Putsch of 1934, von Papen ordered his subordinate, Tschirschky, to appear in the Gestapo, knowing full well what awaited him there (D-684).

Von Papen helped to keep the bloody murder secret from public opinion (D-717; D-718).

The defendant played a tremendous role in helping Nazis to take possession of Austria.

Three weeks after the assassination of Dollfuss, on 26 July 1934, Hitler told von Papen that he was being appointed minister to Vienna, specially noting in a letter: "You have been and continue to be in possession of my fullest and most unlimited trust" (PS-2799).

In this connection it is impossible to ignore the testimony of the American Ambassador Messersmith, who quoted von Papen as saying that "the seizure of Austria is only the first step" and that he, von Papen, was in Austria for the purpose of "further weakening the Austrian Government" (USA-57).

The defendant was Hitler's chief advisor in effecting plans for the seizure of Austria. It was he who proposed several tactical maneu

173

vers, to quiet the vigilance of world opinion on the one hand, and allow Germany to conclude her war preparations, on the other.

This follows indisputably from von Papen's statement to the Austrian Minister Berger-Waldeneck (PS-1760), from the report of Gauleiter Reuner of 6 July 1939 (USA-61), from von Papen's report to Hitler of 21 August 1936 (D-706), from von Papen's report to Hitler of 1 September 1936 (PS-2246; USA-67), and from a series of other documents which had been submitted in evidence.

Von Papen played this game until the issuance of the order for alerting the German armed forces for moving into Austria. He participated in arranging the conference between Hitler and Schuschnigg of 12 February 1938 (USA–69).

It was von Papen who, in a letter to Hitler, emphatically recommended that financial aid be given the Nazi organization in Austria known as the "Freedom Union," specifically for "its fight against the Jewry" (PS-2830).

Indisputable appears the fact of the Nazi seizure of Austria and of von Papen's participation in this act of aggression. After the occupation of Austria, Hitler rewarded von Papen with the golden insignia of the Nazi Party (D-632).

Neither is it possible to ignore von Papen's role as agent provocateur when, in his capacity of diplomat, he was the German Ambassador to Turkey-whenever evaluation of his activity there is made.

The post of ambassador to Turkey was at the time of considerable importance in helping the Nazis realize their aggressive plans. The official Nazi biographer wrote about von Papen as follows:

"Shortly (after the occupation of Austria) the Fuehrer had need of von Papen's services again and on 18 April 1939, he therefore, appointed him German Ambassador in Ankara". (D-632).

It should also be noted that for his Turkish activities, Hitler rewarded von Papen with the Knight's Cross of the War Merit Order with Swords (D–632).

Thus evidence submitted establishes beyond doubt that:

(1) Von Papen actively aided the Nazis in their seizure of power. (2) Von Papen used both his efforts and his connections to solidify and strengthen the Hitlerian terroristic regime in Germany.

(3) Von Papen actively participated in the Nazi aggression against Austria culminating in its occupation.

(4) Von Papen faithfully served Hitler up to the very end aiding the Nazi plans of aggression both with his ability and his diplomatic skill.

It therefore follows that Defendant von Papen bears considerable responsibility for the crimes of the Hitlerite regime.