|
19 de Junio de 1946
Original del inglés.
Sitting at Nuremberg, Germany 7th June to 19th June 1946
One Hundred and Fifty-Eighth Day: Wednesday, 19th June, 1946 (Part 9 of 11)
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I only need to refer briefly to a few documents.In Document Book 1, I submit Document 24, Page 86. I refer to the note: "An agreement was reached with the prosecution to the effect that the fact should be accepted that the Enabling Act of 24th March, 1933, was preceded by two Enabling Acts in 1923". I refer to Document Book 2, Document 63, an article from /Stars and Stripes/ of 27th March, 1946. These are the peace efforts through Earle. The article is to supplement the interrogatory of Lersner.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 36?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No. 63, Page 153. Furthermore, I refer to Volume 2 -
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. This document that you just put before us is a document of March 27th, 1946. What are we going to do with that? It is a newspaper article.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It is a newspaper article on an interview with Earle. He was speaking with Lersner. To supplement the testimony of Lersner which we do not have here I should like to use this newspaper article. It adds to something which is briefly mentioned in Lersner's written testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: But you had the opportunity of getting an affidavit from Lersner or for putting what questions you wanted to Lersner, and now you are putting in a newspaper article dated in 1946 whilst the trial is going on.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, since I cannot hear Lersner himself because of his absence - we intended to hear him as a witness - the question in the interrogatory was answered rather briefly. To complete it -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the interrogatory?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Lersner interrogatory is dated 15th April, 1946. It is Document 93. Date of the interrogatory, 15th April, 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal does not think that this document ought to be admitted. Newspaper articles whilst the trial is going on are not the sort of evidence which the Tribunal thinks it right to admit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In Volume 3 I submit Document 99, an affidavit by Sehaffgotsch, Page 245. It is just being submitted, Mr. President. It is a brief affidavit concerning Papen's vain efforts in the spring of 1934 to reach Hindenburg. Finally, as Document 100, I shall submit the appeal of the Reich Government of 1st of February, 1939, which was mentioned yesterday, and also an excerpt on foreign policy from Hitler's speech of 23rd March. Yesterday it was referred to during the proceedings. Furthermore, I refer to all documents in all three Document Books which have been submitted and ask that you take judicial notice of them. Then I have one final request. Yesterday, parts of the discussion of the affidavits of Schroder and Meissner were read into the record. I believe the prosecution, since they have not made use of the affidavits, will he willing that these parts be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: It was Meissner's affidavit which was used to some extent, was it not?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, it was. My Lord, I should have thought the most convenient course would be for the Tribunal to take it that I have merely put the facts out of the affidavit and not consider that the evidence of the affidavit was before them. Otherwise, I think it would be very difficult to correct the record, but of course I accept that position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we think so. We will treat it as those facts having been put to the witness and the witness having answered them, without considering it as a sworn statement.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, purely as my questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am now finished with the case of the defendant von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit on Saturday in open session from ten to one. I call on counsel for the defendant Speer.
DR. FLAECHSNER (on behalf of the defendant Speer): Mr. President, gentlemen of the Tribunal: Perhaps the High Tribunal will recall the fact that, when we were discussing the material evidence which I had suggested for presentation in this case, I dispensed with the testimony of witnesses and stated that I would limit myself to the use of interrogatories and to the questioning of witnesses outside of the court-room. I had hoped I should thus be able to produce my entire evidence. However, I am not in possession of all the interrogatories I sent out. I have only received part of them. I will use those replies which are at my disposal to the best of my ability in the examination of the defendant so that a special presentation of those interrogatories and of the protocol will be superfluous. Despite everything, I hope to conduct the examination-in-chief of the defendant in such a manner that, in my estimation, I shall be finished in seven hours or, at the most, in a day. Now, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call the defendant Speer to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
ALBERT SPEER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Albert Speer.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, will you please tell the Tribunal about your life up until the time you were appointed minister?
A. I was born on 19th March, 1905. My grandfather and my father were successful architects. At first I wanted to study mathematics and physics but studied architecture, more because of tradition than inclination. I attended the universities at Munich and Berlin and at the age of 24, in 1929, I was the first assistant at the technical college in Berlin. At the age of twenty-seven, in 1932, I went into business for myself until 1942. In 1934 Hitler noticed me for the first time. I became acquainted with him and, from that period of time onwards, I followed my profession with joy and enthusiasm, for Hitler was quite fanatical on the subject of architecture and I received many important constructional contracts from him. In addition to putting up a new Reich chancellery in Berlin and the various buildings on the Party grounds in Nuremberg, I was entrusted with the re-planning of the cities of Berlin and Nuremberg. I had draughted plans for buildings which would have been among the largest in the world, and the carrying through of these plans would have cost no more than two months of Germany's war expenditure. Through this predilection which Hitler had for architecture, I had a close personal contact with him. I belonged to a circle which consisted of other artists and his personal staff. If Hitler had had any friends at all, I certainly would have been one of his close friends. Despite the war, this peaceful constructional work was carried on until December 1941, when the catastrophe in Russia put an end to it. The German personnel of the manpower was furnished by me for the reconstruction of the destroyed railway installations in Russia.
Q. The prosecution, in Document 1435-PS, which is Exhibit USA 216, has quoted a remark from your first speech as a minister, dated February 1942, in which you state that, at that time, you had placed ten thousand prisoners of war at the disposal of the armament industry.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, this remark may be found in my document book on Page 4 of the English text and Page 1 of the French text.
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, what do you have to say to us about this document?
A. At that time, in my capacity as an architect, I had nothing to say as to whether these workers were to be taken into armaments or not. They were put at the disposal of the prisoner-of-war organization of the OKW. I took it as a matter of course that they would be utilised in the armament industry.
Q. Herr Speer, did you ever participate in the planning and preparation of an aggressive war?
A. No. Since I was active as an architect up until the year 1942, there can be no question about that whatsoever. The buildings which I constructed were completely representative of peacetime activities. As an architect, I used up material, manpower and money in considerable amounts for this purpose. This material, in the last analysis, was lost to armaments.
Q. Were you -
A. One moment, please.
The carrying out of these large building plans which Hitler sponsored was, actually and especially psychologically, the antithesis to armament.
Q. The prosecution asserts you had been a Reichsleiter.
A. No, that is a mistake on the part of the prosecution.
Q. You wore the Golden Party Emblem. When and why did you receive it?
A. I received the Golden Party Emblem from Hitler in 1938. It was because I had completed the plans for a new building programme in Berlin. Besides myself, five other artists received this Golden Party Emblem at the same time.
Q. Were you a member of the Reichstag?
A. In 1941 I was made a member of the Reichstag by Hitler, that is, without being elected, as replacement for a member who had left the Reichstag. Hitler At that time said that he wanted me in the Reichstag as representative of the artists.
Q. Did you ever receive a donation?
A. No.
Q. How did your activity as a minister start?
A. On 8th February, 1942, my predecessor, Dr. Todt, was killed in an aeroplane crash. Several days later, Hitler declared I was to be his successor in his many offices. At that time I was thirty-six years of age. Up until that time, Hitler considered the main activity of Todt to be in the building sphere, and that is why he called me to be his successor. I believe that it was a complete surprise to everyone when I was appointed as minister. Immediately upon my assuming office, it was plain that not building but armament production was to be my main task. Because of the heavy losses of material in the battles in Russia during the winter of 1941-1942, Hitler called for considerable intensification of armament production.
Q. When you assumed office, did you find the Reich Ministry for Munitions well and completely organized?
A. No, Dr. Todt had neglected this function of his up to that time, and in addition, in the autumn of 1941, Hitler had issued a decree according to which the armament of the army was to take second place to the armament of the air force. At that time he foresaw a victorious outcome of the war in Russia and had decreed that armament was to be concentrated on the imminent war against England, and was to be converted to that end. Because of this unbelievable optimism of his, the rescinding of that order was postponed until January 1942, and only from that date onward, for a month - that is, during the last month of his life - did Dr. Todt start to build up his organization. Therefore, I had the difficult task, first of all, to make myself acquainted with a completely new field of activity; secondly, at the same time to create all organisational prerequisites for my task; and thirdly, to increase armament production for the army, and to increase production generally as much as possible within the next few months. As is very well known today, I succeeded in doing that.
Q. What promises did you receive from Hitler about the duration of your task and about your staff of collaborators?
A. Hitler promised me that I should consider my task only as a war task and that after the war I might once more resume my profession of architect.
DR. FLAECHSNER: At this point I should like to mention a passage from Document 1435 which deals with a speech delivered by Speer on 24th February, 1942, ten days after he assumed office. This document shows that he was very reluctant about changing his profession of architect for that of a minister. I quote: "Finally, I can say for myself that my personal contribution is a very large one. Up until very recently I lived in a world of pure ideals". In Document 1520-PS, which is Exhibit GB 156, which is on Page 2 of my Document Book; Page 5 of the English text and Page 2 of the French and Russian texts, on 8th May, 1942, Hitler stated, and I quote: "The Fuehrer thereupon stated several times that the Reich Ministry Speer would be dissolved on the day when peace was concluded". I should further like to submit Speer Document 43, which is a memorandum from Speer to Hitler, dated 20th September, 1944. Mr. President, this may be found on Page 6 of the English text, Page 3 of the French and Russian texts. From this document you can see that Speer was considered hostile to the Party ("parteifremd" and "parteifeindlich") by Bormann and Goebbels because of his circle of collaborators. Speer writes in his memorandum, and I quote: "The task which I have to fulfil is a non-political one. I was content in my work, as long as I personally and my work were evaluated only according to professional achievements and standards. I do not feel strong enough to carry out successfully and without hindrance the technical work to be accomplished by myself and my co-workers if it is to be measured by Party political standards".
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, can you describe the fundamental principles according to which you built up your ministry?
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you giving that?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Exhibit No. 1, Mr. President.
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, can you describe the fundamental principles which you followed in building up your ministry?
A. I personally was no expert, and I did not want to act as an expert. Therefore, I selected the best possible experts to be found in Germany as my co-workers. I believed that these men were to be found within industry itself. Therefore, I made up my ministry of honorary industrial co-workers. This was done in the United States in a similar way during the war in matters of production. Professional civil servants were lacking in my ministry and you cannot really consider my ministry as one set up on normal lines.
In June 1944 I delivered a speech in Essen about the fundamental principles upon which I founded my ministry and its work, to defend myself against the various attacks on my system in Party circles.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, I believe that the High Tribunal is not yet in possession of my Document Book containing the interrogatories. I would have been glad to point out that the statements given by witnesses Sauer and Schieber in this connection are summed up in this answer. Now I shall submit -
THE PRESIDENT: If you will give us the reference - Give us the names of the witnesses. We can take notice of them afterwards. What are their names?
DR. FLAECHSNER: The witness Sauer, and we are dealing with his, answers to Points 4, 5 and 8 of the interrogatory; the witness Schieber gives a statement regarding this matter under Point 12 of his interrogatory.
Now I should like to submit the speech given by Speer on 9th June, 1944, as Exhibit No. 2. It confirms the testimony which the defendant has made about the organization of his ministry and the staffing of it with honorary industrial co-workers. I shall quote it. I am sorry to say that this speech is also not contained in your Honour's supplementary volume. I am very sorry. I will just have to read it, and I quote: "These honorary co-workers drawn from industry - "
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flaechsner, it is a little bit inconvenient to the Tribunal not to have these documents before them. You could not possibly postpone dealing with the particular documents that you have not got here until tomorrow morning? Shall we have the supplementary volume then?
DR. FLAECHSNER: The promise was given me that it would be at my disposal by this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, then, would it be convenient to leave those parts which are contained in the supplementary volume over until tomorrow?
DR. FLAECHSNER: In the supplementary volume No. 5 we find a document, very short in part, with which I shall not concern myself today. Only this one speech which I am mentioning now is -
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I quote: "These honorary co-workers, drawn from industry, carry the responsibility to the last detail for what is manufactured in the various enterprises and industries and for how it is manufactured". Then a few lines farther down: "Among your main tasks, next to the assigning of contracts to these industries, is to supervise the restriction of the types and specialisation of these industries; under certain circumstances, to close certain enterprises, to further rationalisation from the point of view of raw materials, construction and production, as well as unconditional exchange of experience, without regard to 'Schutzrechte' (patents)". From various passages of this document it can be seen clearly that Speer considered his office an improvised instrument which made use of the existing authorities of the Reich for the fulfilment of his tasks without burdening his office with administrative duties. The decree of 10th August, which is mentioned in the speech of Speer, shows that he expressly prohibited his offices from turning into administrative offices. The defendant did not want the bureaucratic system in his ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: What speech of Speer are you referring to? You said the decree of 10th August.
DR. FLAECHSNER: It is still the same speech, Mr. President, which I just mentioned. The decree is mentioned therein.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not get what the year was when you began. What was the year?
DR. FLAECHSNER: The year was 1942, 10th August, and the speech was given in, the year 1944. Therefore, he was referring to a decree which had been in force for some time.Just how important it was to the defendant to have non-bureaucratic new forces in his ministry is shown in a passage from his speech which I would like to quote now: "Any organization which is to last for some period of time and which exceeds a certain size has a tendency to become bureaucratic. Even though, in one of the first large attacks on Berlin, large numbers of the current files of the ministry were burned and therefore, for some time, we were lucky enough to have unnecessary ballast taken from us, we cannot expect occurrences of that sort will continuously bring new vigour into our work".
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, so far as the Tribunal wishes, will you please briefly supplement these statements about the tasks of your ministry from the technical point of view?
A. I shall try to be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you, Dr. Flaechsner, you read us the speech.
DR. FLAECHSNER: The speech, yes -
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to be very remote to every issue, even as it is, and why you should want to supplement it, I do not know.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I thought it might be of interest to the High Tribunal to hear about the sphere of activity which the defendant had in his capacity as a minister. This speech was made to experts and is, therefore, really only of interest to an expert. I assumed that the High Tribunal would wish to know just what the task of the production ministry of Herr Speer was. I am under the impression that the prosecution thinks its sphere of activity to have been considerably greater than it actually was.
THE PRESIDENT: If you want to know what he says about the tasks of his ministry, you can ask him. But you have just been reading his speech, and we do not want to -
DR. FLAECHSNER (interposing): No, no, I do not want that either. He is just going to give us briefly some of the technical tasks of his ministry. That is what I wanted to know.
THE PRESIDENT: You do not seem to be hearing me accurately. Would it not be better if you put your earphones on? What I said was that you had read the speech and we did not want to hear any more argument upon the speech from the defendant. If you want to ask the defendant what the tasks of his ministry were, ask him. What you asked him was: "Do you wish to supplement the speech?"
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, will you please tell us what the tasks were which your ministry had to carry out, and please do not refer to the things that I mentioned in the speech.
A. I believe the tasks of a production ministry are well known in all industrial States. I just wanted to summarize briefly which functions I had to concern myself with in detail in this ministry. For one, we had to surmount the deficiency in raw materials, metals and steel. Then, through an introduction of the Fliessbandarbeiten (assembly line work), which is customary in the United States, but was not yet very current in Germany, the work was systematized and thus machinery and space were used to the utmost. Also, it was necessary to amplify the production programme, for example, for fine steel, aluminium, and for individual parts like ball bearings and cog-wheels. One of the most important tasks was the development of new weapons and their mass production; and then, beginning with 1943, repairing of the damage caused by the extraordinarily rapid bombing attacks, which forced us to work with improvised means and methods.
Q. What was the importance of this activity in the sphere of your ministry?
A. It is to be taken as a matter of course that this sphere of activity was the most important in our country, if only because it included providing equipment for the army. I claimed that during the war the rest of the economy would have to be regulated according to the exigencies of armament. In times of war, at home, there are only two tasks which count: Furnishing soldiers for the front, and supplying weapons.
Q. Why was the task of your ministry purely a war function?
A. Because during peace-time the giving of orders is normally regulated according to supply and demand, but in war time this regulating factor is lacking.
Q. Therefore it was one of the main tasks of your ministry to exercise a State control over the distribution of orders?
A. Yes.
Q. Then, at first, you had responsibility only for armament production for the army, but at the end of 1944 you were responsible for the entire field of armament and war production. Can you briefly tell me the stages of this development, and how thereby the extent of your task grew?
A. It would be best for me to tell you about the development by dealing with the number of workers I had. In 1942 I took over the armament and construction programmes with altogether 2,600,000 workers. In the spring of 1943, Donitz gave me the responsibility for naval armament as well, and at this period I had 3,200,000 workers. In September of 1943, through an agreement with the Minister of Economics, Herr Funk, the production task of the Ministry of Economics was transferred to me. With that I had 12,000,000 workers working for me. Finally, I took over the air armament from Goering on 1st August, 1944. With that the total production was marshalled under me with 14,000,000 workers. The number of workers applies to the Greater German Reich, not including the occupied countries.
Q. How was it possible to have a task of that magnitude directed by a ministry that consisted almost exclusively of honorary members who, moreover, had no practical routine experience in purely administrative matters?
A. The administrative departments in the various armament offices retained their tasks. In that way, for example, in the army, the Heereswaffenamt - the Army Weapon Office - with a staff of several thousands, gave the orders, supervised the carrying out of these orders, and saw to it that delivery of the orders and payments were carried out in a proper manner. Only in that way did I succeed in having the entire armament production - which amounted to three to four billion marks a month - carried through with an honorary co-worker staff of six thousand people.
Q. Were all armament enterprises subordinate to you?
A. No. There was a small group of enterprises, which were run directly by the Wehrmacht branches with their own workers, not controlled by me; and also the enterprises of the SS were excluded from my domain as well.
Q. The prosecution makes the charge that you shared the responsibility for the recruiting of foreign workers and prisoners of war, and took manpower from concentration camps. What do you say to this?
A. In this connection, neither I nor the ministry were responsible for this. The ministry was a new establishment, which had a technical problem to deal with. It took no competence in any field away from an existing authority. The conditions of work were still handled through the old existing authorities. The Food Ministry, and the various offices connected with it, were responsible for the food supply, and the trade supervising agencies in the Reich Ministry were responsible for the maintenance of safe, liveable conditions at the places of work; the Trustees of Labour, working under the Plenipotentiary for Labour Commitment, were responsible for the salaries and the quality and quantity of work done; and the Health Office of the Reich Ministry of the Interior was responsible for health conditions. The Justice Department and the Police Department dealt with violations against labour discipline, and finally, the German Labour Front was responsible for representing the interests of the workers. The centralisation of all of these authorities lay in the bands of the Gauleiter as Reich Defence Commissioner. The fact that the SS put itself and its concentration camp internees outside the control of State departments was not a matter with which I or my ministry were concerned.
Q. Your co-defendant Sauckel testified to the effect that with the carrying out of the recruiting of workers for the industries his task was finished. Is that correct in your opinion?
A. Yes, certainly, as far as the recruiting of workers is concerned, for one of the subjects of dissension between Sauckel and me was that the suitable employment of workers in the industry itself was a matter for the judgement of the man in charge of the industry, and that this could not be influenced by the Labour Office. It applied, however, only to the recruitment of labour, and not to the observing of conditions of labour. In this latter connection, the office of Sauckel was partly responsible as supervising authority.
Q. To what extent could the works manager carry out the decrees of Sauckel as to labour conditions, etc.?
A. The decrees issued by Sauckel were unobjectionable, but the works managers did not always find it possible to carry out the orders for reasons which were beyond their control. The bombing attacks brought about difficulties, such as disorganised transportation or destroyed living quarters. It is not possible to make the managers responsible for the observing of these decrees under circumstances which often took on catastrophic proportions after the summer of 1944. These were times of crises, and it was a matter for the Reich authorities to determine just how far it was possible to carry through these decrees, and it was not right to push this responsibility on to the shoulders of the works manager.
Q. How far was the factory manager responsible to your ministry in this regard?
A. Within the framework of the above-mentioned responsibility which industry enjoyed, the armament factory managers had received an equal State responsibility from me. This, of course, applied only to technical tasks.
Q. Were there any industries making secret items which were not permitted to be inspected by the Gauleiters? I recall evidence given here where this, was reported.
A. There were some industries which concerned themselves with secret matters, but in such cases the sectional manager of the Labour Front was represented, and the representative could report to the Gauleiter on conditions in the factory through the Gauobmann (Chief of the Labour Front of a Gau).
Q. Did you approve of the punishment of people who were unwilling to work?
A. Yes, I considered it right that workers who violated labour discipline should be punished, but I did not demand supplementary measures in this regard. As a matter of principle, I represented the view that a satisfactory output on the part of fourteen million workers could be achieved in the long run only through the good will of the workers themselves. This is a bit of experience which applies generally, causing every employer in the world to do all in his power to make his workers satisfied.
Q. Did you support the efforts made by Sauckel to improve the social conditions of the workers, and if so, why?
A. Naturally I supported them, even though I did not have any jurisdiction in that sphere, for the reasons which I have just mentioned. For our experience proved that when labour was content and satisfied, there was much less loss in materials. This for me was very important, because of our deficiency in raw materials. Moreover it is obvious that the better quality which is produced by satisfied labourers is of special importance in time of war.
Q. In the records of your discussions with Hitler, there are various directives made by Hitler dealing with the care and the treatment of foreign workers. Did you cause Hitler to give these directives?
A. Yes.
DR. FLAECHSNER: In this connection, I should like to submit three pieces of evidence - first of all, Speer Document 11. Mr. President, this is found on Page 10 of the English text, Page 7 of the French text. In this document, upon Speer's request, in March 1942, it was put down and I quote: "That the Russians under all circumstances were to receive sufficient food and that Russian civilians were not to be put behind barbed wire and be treated as prisoners of war". As my next piece of evidence, which will be Exhibit 4, I would like to submit Speer Document 13. According to this document, in May 1943, Hitler decided, at the suggestion of Speer, that the German as well as Russian miners should receive a substantial amount of supplementary rations; it is also particularly specified there that the Russian prisoners of war are to receive rewards in the form of tobacco and similar items, for special efforts and achievements. The next piece of evidence is Speer Exhibit 5 and it is Document 9. Mr. President, this is found on Page 12 of the English text and Page 9 of the German text in the Document Book. According to this document the food supply in Italian armament plants is to be raised to about the level of the German rations. In this connection it is important to note that Speer at the same time issued directives that also the families of these workers receive equivalent care. I had other documents of this type at my disposal, but, in order to save the time of the translation department, I did not include them in my Document Book.
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Herr Speer, to whom did the bonuses of the armament industry go, and of what did they consist?
A. We gave out many millions of packages to armament plants. They contained additional food, chocolate, cigarettes, and so forth, and these bonuses were given in addition to all the extra food rations which were allowed by the Food Ministry for those who worked longer hour...
|
BUSCADOR INTERNO
INTERROGATORIO A ALBERT SPEER EN NUREMBERG