The Nuremberg Interviews (43 page)

I said I had recently been interviewing Oswald Pohl of the SS, who said he knew about these Reichsbank deposits from the concentration camps but that nevertheless he claimed personal innocence because he did not order the executions. “That is being foolish. Ask him his position and that is enough. I never met him. I heard his name for the first time in this court here. He was in charge of the administration of the concentration camps and had the feeding and housing of internees in his power. He must have known what happened.”

I said that Pohl admitted he knew but that he simply denied having given the order and therefore disclaimed any guilt. Schacht replied in a disgusted tone, “Ach! If Hitler had given me an immoral order I would have refused. Think of it! To break teeth out of a dead body! Think of it! Why, if I had been only a simple soldier, I would not have obeyed. I would have said that it was against my religious conviction. That dog Pohl knew all about it.”

Schacht asked me what I intended to do with all of the notes I had taken in the course of our conversations. He was obviously curious. I told him that I was simply trying to obtain a more or less well-rounded psychological study of him and the other important people in the prison and that that was about the extent of it. Schacht discussed the subject of psychiatry, saying he felt that it was extremely interesting. He said that for some time he had been bothered when he thought about a twenty-year-old man he once saved from a death sentence for having spoken against Hitler while this man was in a manic insane state. However, although Schacht had managed to save his life, he could not prevent the man from being sterilized. Schacht asked me whether I thought he had done the right thing — should he have intervened to save this young man’s life, or was it better to die than to be sterilized? It was the type of question that required no answer. As usual, Schacht was talking for effect. He went on to expand on this little story. He said that the twenty-year-old’s father had been a manic-depressive individual, and that the boy’s sister had committed suicide.

“All of those laws about sterilization that Hitler introduced — I told
him he shouldn’t.
⁹
These laws were supposed to be based on popular opinion. I told him that he would have to establish a court to determine the people’s opinion. Popular opinion varies. For example, the opinion of the poor is quite different from that of the rich. Another example is as follows: In Bavaria among the peasants, nobody would marry a girl until he knows that she can bear children, and the man tries before marriage. In other parts of German society that is not so.” Schacht laughed in a cackling, strident manner at the described Bavarian peasant customs. “I want to add, however, that this is not a slander against Bavarians. It is considered extremely dishonorable if the man does not marry her afterward.”

I asked him whether he thought in general that the morals of Germans had suffered as the result of fourteen years of National Socialism. “I doubt it. People as a whole had little to do with atrocities, except for fanatics like Bormann and the SS. Bormann was absolutely criminal. But as for the threat to morals, I think Bolshevism is much more dangerous than Nazism. I know that the Bolsheviks have never exterminated 5 million people, but aside from that single incidence, the Red idea is immoral because of its contempt for private enterprise.”

I asked Schacht in what way he connected immorality with a contempt for private property. He said, “In the Russian occupation zone, laws have already been introduced to seize property without payment. In Saxony five thousand manufacturers have been deprived of property and their industries taken over by the state without any consideration. If you do away with the institution of private property, the fundamental element of social life is undermined. I am in favor of allowing everyone to become wealthy. But to take the property of another man is criminal. This was introduced by the Bolsheviks and by the Versailles Treaty. It is the greatest mistake. My feelings, Doctor, are that the only big power which tried to build up a foreign policy based on morals has been the Americans for the past thirty years.

“I was rather surprised when Justice Jackson said to me in court that I ‘misled Hitler by joining his cabinet.’ I replied, ‘Leading, not misleading.’ Justice Jackson replied ironically, ‘I am glad I know your philosophy.’ You know, I think Jackson is an excellent prosecutor but I doubt if he will make a good judge.

“Some remarks of Jackson’s astonished me. He said, ‘I have never pretended to be impartial.’ Now, with us Germans, that could never happen.
A German prosecutor must try to be impartial. The judge does the questioning but it is also the case that a prosecutor must be as impartial as the judge.

“Here in this trial the judges sit back and listen and weigh the evidence. With us Germans the judges try to find the truth. The defendant’s counsel as well as the prosecutor are also bound to find the truth. Here, the prosecutor conceals evidence if it is favorable for the defendant, and does not bring it before the court.

“But the judges here are favorable. The best is Francis Beverly Biddle — an excellent man.” I asked Schacht what he thought of Biddle’s questioning of Sauckel when the latter was on the witness stand. Schacht replied, “Excellent. Biddle was obviously so well-meaning. He was trying to find the slightest thing in favor of Sauckel, and believe me, that was hard to find with the judges and evidence they have against that man. I don’t mean that Sauckel himself is bad exactly — he is a poorly educated man of poor descent. I am sure his parents never went to school, even.

“Of course, I can’t form an impression of the other judges because they hardly speak. This is especially true for the Russian judges, since they never say a word. The Russian prosecution is poor. General G. A. Rudenko, the chief Russian prosecutor, is very poor. Colonel J. W. Pokrowsky is somewhat better, but the best and most intelligent prosecutor is Robert H. Jackson, with his very quick, subtle mind. The Englishman Sir David Maxwell Fyfe is an excellent jurist, extremely well instructed and with great knowledge. His assistant, Roberts, I don’t think much of. Mr. Dodd, the assistant American prosecutor, is good. One can see intelligence, clear thinking in his every word and manner. By the way, is he any relation to the former ambassador, Dodd? I knew Ambassador Dodd very well. He had a clean, sober, excellent character. He was frightfully against the Nazis. I sympathized at that time with his attitude. He was an obstinate man who stuck to his opinions — but I don’t mean that in the bad sense. He was an absolutely fine character, moderate in his behavior and decent in his life. I appreciated him greatly. He invited me to come to the United States and once he warned me of an attack against me.

“This tribunal is principally concerned with judging deeds of the past. But I hope that from this trial some hope for the future will spring forth. That means a better understanding for the problems in Europe.

“The problem of Europe is how to feed the mass of people living here. There are, of course, constructive ideas and I have some myself, but they can’t be carried out without great changes and without great courage. The only hope I have is that President Truman will have the courage to approach this problem. The people in Europe can’t live without something being done. It is worse now after the Russians have taken possession of one-third of Germany and of the agricultural districts. Millions of Germans have been driven out of the East from Poland and Czechoslovakia.”

I asked Schacht what direction Truman should take, in his opinion. He replied, “President Truman is the only man with power because his people have power. To discuss my ideas on what he should do is not worthwhile without talking directly to Truman or the secretary of state, Byrnes, or even to Mr. Bevin of England. There is some truth to the words of the late Georges Clemenceau that there are 20 million Germans too many.
¹⁰
Either these Germans have to perish or you have to find some way out, without hurting any other people, of course.”

I remarked that these words of Clemenceau always seemed rash to me. “I can be more precise than that. When I am a free man I will talk of it perhaps. When previously I tried to convince Hitler of something, I was not listened to. With more patience on our side, maybe I would have succeeded, but what happened was that Hitler managed to get into power with an awful propaganda program. Hitler had neither patience nor understanding. I tried very hard to bring those qualities to his policy, but I failed. That is my tragic life — I can’t help it. It is the great tragedy of my life.

“I have never believed in war. It is a crime against humanity whether you win or lose. I just read an article in this magazine I have in my hands that one day the moon will fall on the earth, but it is my feeling that until then, we should try to make the world a better place to live in.”

Baldur von Schirach
1907–1974

Baldur von Schirach, leader of the Hitler Youth, was appointed governor of Vienna in 1940. Found guilty by the Nuremberg tribunal of crimes against humanity, he was sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment, and released from Spandau prison on September 30, 1966.

I spent several hours with Baldur von Schirach this Sunday afternoon. He is his usual bright, self-effacing self, very courteous and friendly. He takes himself rather seriously, as is obvious and can be gleaned from his general demeanor and words.

We began today discussing the problem of the case against the organizations. Schirach is very much against the indictment of any or all of the organizations for the same reason that so many of the defendants have given. “If you outlaw half a million people you make martyrs of them. For example, if you outlaw Robin Hood it is all very well, but if you outlaw a whole group of people around Robin Hood, then Robin Hood and his merry men become legends.

“There is something in the German nature that tends toward aggression. That is why the German press today goes further than the American military government.” Why? “Perhaps it is idealism. The German wants to make everything better and better. I mean if the American military government system is to de-Nazify Germany, the German government would say we have to do more than that — not halfway — more labor camps. It must be something in our nature.” Do you really mean
that this is idealism? “What I mean really is an attempt to reach perfection. It is perfectionism more than idealism, I suppose.”

Do you think that this perfectionism in the German people might explain Bach-Zelewski’s statement that Himmler wanted the extermination of 30 million Slavs, as well as the already realized extermination of 5 to 6 million Jews? “Yes, yes, indeed. However, that would be an idea that the German people could not stand because many Slavs lived with Germans for years. Many Austrians had Slavic grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, et cetera. It was an entirely ridiculous idea, but Himmler always exaggerated.

“In the beginning there was no exaggeration. It is true there was some anti-Semitism, also the propaganda that the Slavic nations and all other nations were to be considered inferior. It started as a policy that the Jews should not have power. But the Germans went too far — like Streicher. Even Streicher didn’t say ten years before what he said ten years later. Finally Himmler and Hitler say we must extinguish the Jews, and with the German tendencies to perfectionism and exaggeration, it is taken literally.

“It could happen in any country, provided the conditions were as they were in Germany; namely, a lost war, a harsh treaty like Versailles, the unemployment situation, poor housing, and food shortages.

“For example, in the French nation there is the tendency for ‘
la gloire
.’ That alone would not make Napoleon — but that, with other circumstances, explains sixty percent of his great achievements. Between Napoleon and Hitler there is a fundamental difference. Napoleon may have looted — he stole treasures from all of Europe — he was not kindly or soft in his treatment of other nations, but he did have an idea of a united Europe and a wonderful collection of laws, which are known as the Napoleonic Code. The German state would not have been forced together if it had not been for Napoleon. Napoleon knew the world because he had sound military and scientific training in his youth. He lived in Paris and he had contact with people belonging to other nations. Hitler never had that. He had no facility to conduct a simple conversation with anyone, much less with any foreigners.

“You probably notice that Germans try to talk about philosophical problems. It is difficult to get them to talk of simple things. The
idea
was always more essential than bread and butter for our nation. Had we thought more of bread and butter we would have realized that Russia
and Germany must live together. But Bolshevism and National Socialism were two worldviews that the German people could not accept.”

Do you think the Bolsheviks are as bad as Nazi propaganda claimed them to be? “I know from talking to many young men who were in Russia that the standard of living there was far below the German standard. Moreover, the form of government in Russia was as undemocratic and as totalitarian as can be.”