372 THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL [JUNE

Their successors are evidently determined to maintain their close relations with independent scholarship. M. J. BONN. London. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/60/238/372/5260303 by guest on 27 September 2021 Account Settled. By HJALMAR SCHACHT. Translated by EDWARD FITZGERALD. (London. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1949. Pp. 327. 15s.) THANKS are due to publisher and translator for producing this excellent and readable English version of Schacht's famous apologia. It is in one way not an important book. We do not find in it any­ thing like a serious or systematic survey of the historic events in Germany in which Schacht played so decisive a part. On purely financial and economic matters the book is almost entirely silent, though there is a perfunctory account of the notorious Mefo bills, for which Schacht claims credit as an instrument, invented by himself, for curing unemployment in the early thirties. The real interest in the book lies in other fields. It gives vivid pictures of the other leading figures in Germany during the rise and fall of the Nazi Party. These are often highly prejudiced, however; in particular, the chapter on Hitler himself is merely abusive, when it might (one supposes) have been really illuminat­ ing. As a piece of special pleading the book is magnificent. Not even the author's vanity can obscure his brilliance. He is pre­ pared to challenge the whole world with his lonely, flashing rapier. No one is spared—not Nazis, German generals, German churchmen or businessmen, not France, America, Russia, not even the German Service of the B.B.C., which, according to Schacht, made life more difficult for him by constantly acclaiming him as an opponent of the Nazi Party. (In fact, the German Service of the B.B.C. rarely did this, but on Schacht's own showing it had every ground for doing so.) So scintillating a display is not calculated to help the* sober seeker after truth. Nevertheless, we do learn from the book a great deal about his own psychology and that of his fellow- countrymen. Schacht was genuinely anti-Nazi, of that there can be no doubt. But not entirely for the right reasons. True, he did genuinely hate the most repulsive features of the regime, particu­ larly its anti-Semitism, and did what he could to protect Jews who fell within his own spheres of influence from its worst excesses. But the reader of his book will find no sign that he opposed Hitler's war policy as such. He thought that Hitler behaved far 1950] SCHACHT : ACCOUNT SETTLED 373 too precipitately, and tried to restrain him, and to induce others in influential positions to do likewise. But the reason for his opposition was, not that a policy of war and conquest was wrong, but that it was being carried out without the necessary preparation, and without adequate economic resources. For instance, he condemns Hitler's decision " to rush the question of Austria's Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ej/article/60/238/372/5260303 by guest on 27 September 2021 Anschluss to a premature solution " (p. 113, my italics); and yet only a few pages later the Anschluss is accepted as " an enormous diplomatic success " for Hitler, and the Western Powers are duly belaboured for having permitted it. This is a neat example of the German desire to have things both ways. Schacht is not opposed to the idea of Germany's becoming "top nation"; indeed, he more than once claims that for the last thousand years Germany has been the centre of world culture and progress. But when Germany tries to translate its top-nationhood into material fact, by aggressive means, and fails, then the fault is either Hitler's or the outside world's—but not Germany's. Particularly revealing are the last two chapters of the book, in which Schacht discusses " The German Problem " and asks for "Re-inspiration." The theme of these pages is the defence of Germany against the charge of " collective guilt " for Hitler's war. With Dr. Schacht (as with millions of his fellow-countrymen) this has become a neurotic obsession, which only a psycho-pathologist could deal with. How can a mere economist or politician tackle it ? Only, I submit, by hammering on at the distinction between " guilt " and " responsibility." That the German people was responsible for the war in supporting Hitler and acquiescing in his racial and expansionist policies is a question of historical causation. Whether this " responsibility " involves moral " guilt " or not depends on all sorts of circumstances, and a complete survey of them would certainly bring to light various extenuating circum­ stances. But the basic issue, from the point of view of the world as a whole, is that of " responsibility." Will the German people now learn that if they once again refuse to take charge of their own political destinies (whether for good reasons or bad) they are liable once again to find themselves the slaves (willing or un­ willing) of a Hitler ? They will certainly not be helped towards the realisation of this by Dr. Schacht's somewhat hysterical defence against accusations of collective German war " guilt." LlNDLEY FRASER London.