. NMT06-T0608
Volume VI · Page 608
| A. Yes, the note is a memorandum
from me which approximately lays down what I intended to say to Goering. Of
course I didn't read it to him but these were just ideas and it is a survey of
the situation as I saw it at that time and of what I intended to tell Goering
and, of course, I intended to take into account the whole state of affairs and
his mentality. In fact I had to do so. In the long run, in the last instance,
one could not talk quite openly to the "big shots" of the Third Reich, and it
would not have been possible for me to tell Goering, for instance, that
everything planned here was unheard of; that it mustn’t happen in any
event. One had to adapt oneself to the language of national socialism and also
to the person concerned. It was unthinkable for me to go to Goering and tell
him, "You have asked for an expropriation law; this is complete nonsense." I
had to try tactical and diplomatic means to get him on to the way I considered
right and along those lines which I was trying to get at in the matter, and
which in the end I managed to achieve. Q. I must put to you some parts of this document and ask you to explain them, because I can perfectly understand that at first sight every prosecutor could be highly pleased both about this document and some of the later ones in the document books of the prosecution. That is why we must discuss them in detail. There are quite a few anti-Semitic remarks in them. If, for instance on page 5, in the middle, if you look at that, it says — "Many Jews have wondered how it was that, in view of the influence and property owned by this group, no change has been made." I'll take them altogether later on and then you can answer these points altogether. "I, personally, do not believe that these British and American interlocking holdings [Verschachtelungen] in any way are based on actual ownership." In other words you are telling Goering and the committee it is all rubbish about the alleged Aryan property; it is actually Jewish property. And. then also important but perhaps with another tendency at the top of page 6, "It should not be forgotten that should we begin to confiscate the property legally or by decree, a thing like that would not be so easy to do and the consequences, from an international point of view, cannot be overlooked," etc., and then at the end or rather at the end of page 6 you say, "No foreign currency can be spared," although you knew that the Petscheks wanted foreign currency. And, then, first of all these circumstances, because they are not really in your language. Could you briefly remark on this? You have already mentioned the practical character of this document. A. That one had to make a small anti-Semitic remark occasionally to Goering or to the committee, that, in view of the situ- […ation] |
