Afternoon Session
THE PRESIDENT: Had you finished, Sir David?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, I had finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Did any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine?
Dr. Kubuschok?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the cross-examination yesterday it was pointed out to you that in your report to Hitler of 27 July 1935—British Document Book 11a, Page 79—you point out that, according to legal findings, leading Reich-German personalities applied the use of force in Austria in July 1934. In this connection you mentioned the name Habicht. I should like to receive some information about the personality of Habicht. Was Habicht a Reich-German?
VON PAPEN: Habicht was a Reich-German and had his headquarters in Munich. He was Provincial Inspector (Landesinspekteur) of the entire National Socialist Party in Austria. That means the following:
The Austrian Party had a Gauleiter in Austria, but it was directed from Munich from the Reich Party Directorate by a specially appointed Landesleiter, Provincial Inspector Habicht. Since this man had charge of the whole Austrian Party, his position in the Party was, of course, considered as a leading one. One could not call him a “liaison officer,” but a leading Reich-German personality.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In cross-examination yesterday various letters were submitted to you which you wrote to Hitler between 4 and 17 July 1934. These letters should be gone into more closely. What was the purpose of the letters?
VON PAPEN: I am glad to have an opportunity to go into this correspondence once more. One must consider the situation which existed at that time: Bose shot, three co-workers arrested, great excitement; and everyone who was in any way in opposition was under suspicion of being connected with this SA revolt. It was similar to the situation after 20 July 1944.
Therefore the first goal was to clear up the Bose case as well as the other cases through legal proceedings. I requested that in my first letter of 4 July. I also demanded this rehabilitation in further letters, but it was a prerequisite to establish first of all that we were not in any way connected with the SA conspirators.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In the letters you assure Hitler of your faithfulness and loyalty. Is this not astonishing after the events of 30 June?
VON PAPEN: It may seem astonishing to an outsider, but not to a person who remembers the hysterical atmosphere of those days, for at that time everyone who had been in any opposition at all or who had criticized the system was branded as a co-conspirator. For that reason I thought it advisable to make it clear, by means of such a letter, that I and the Vice Chancellery had nothing to do with this conspiracy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The representative of the Prosecution thinks your letters have only the purpose of rehabilitating your own person. What do you have to say about this?
VON PAPEN: I ask that the Tribunal study these letters. In them it can be seen that I repeatedly pointed out that my co-workers too must be absolutely rehabilitated. In the letter of 12 July, on Page 3, I say that the honor of my own officials is also my own honor; and I repeatedly demanded that the Bose case be cleared up.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What did you believe to be able to achieve through the legal proceedings which you suggested?
VON PAPEN: Legal proceedings would have had two effects: In the first place, nonparticipation in the Putsch would have been established; and that would necessarily have shown that the arrest of my co-workers and the killing of Bose had been an arbitrary act, an act for which those responsible were to be punished.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In a letter of 14 July you welcomed Hitler’s speech of justification before the Reichstag on 13 July. What comment do you have to make on this?
VON PAPEN: I may ask you to look at the text of this letter. I welcomed the suppression of the intended second revolution, but this must by no means be taken as recognition of the acts of violence carried out against persons not participating in the revolution; and furthermore, the following is to be considered: The events of 30 June were divided into two parts. In the first place, Hitler himself had turned against the revolting SA; the fact that such a revolt was actually planned seemed quite credible to all of us, for the rumors of a second revolution had been current in the country for weeks. In Marburg I had already made reference to it. The revolt of the SA leaders, who represented an effective power, could be considered a danger to the State; and the executions had been directed against SA leaders who were especially well-known and whose names were connected with the excesses of 1933.
The second part of the action had been directed against persons outside this circle. Slowly the news of the individual cases leaked out. The justification for taking steps against these persons was in part explained by saying that they had some sort of connection with SA leaders and that some of them had offered resistance. That had to be cleared up, for here an emergency law could be referred to; but it was not possible to deviate from an orderly legal procedure. Hence my letter to Hitler of 12 July, in which I asked him not to deviate from the orderly legal procedure. I warned him against identifying himself with these events, and I demanded from him—referring to the Bose case—the latter’s rehabilitation and legal proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the letters, Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the purpose of this questioning is to clear up the matter and to explain the contents of the letters, but I believe the defendant has said enough and we can go on to another question now.
Your letter of 17 July is signed without a complimentary closing, and also deviates from other letters in its general form. How do you explain this?
VON PAPEN: On 17 July, I had to consider my efforts to achieve legal proceedings as having failed. I had not even received my files back. For that reason, I gave up further efforts and there was no longer any reason to announce my resignation publicly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You mean to put it off.
Now I come back to a document which the British Prosecution referred to today. It is 2248-PS in the British Document Book 11a, Page 99. The representative of the British Prosecution has tried to obtain an explanation from the defendant. I believe difficulties in the translation and the manner of expression in general have made it a bit hard to understand. I will read the sentence in question once more and ask the defendant to explain this sentence. I will quote on Page 99 of the English text, the second paragraph from the top.
“The way Germany....”
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have had a very long explanation already.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the explanation suffered from the fact that the defendant did not understand the translation correctly or that the British Prosecution did not understand the defendant. The form of the German text is not clear. The defendant will be able to explain it very easily. The explanation goes...
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on then, go on.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: “The way in which Germany deals with politico-religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundation of Germany, will not only have a decisive effect on England,” et cetera.
Please explain the sense of this sentence which I have just read.
VON PAPEN: I meant to say to Hitler, “You must eliminate political Catholicism with a clever hand, but the religious foundation must under no circumstances be touched.” It depended upon the clever solution of this question...
THE PRESIDENT: No question of translation arises. The passage was read to us verbatim as it is before us, and it was read by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant, and the defendant has given the same answer over and over again in answer to Sir David.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I point out the following: The whole sentence was in the future tense, the whole sentence...
THE PRESIDENT: It was read to us just now by the interpreter verbatim in the words which are before us in the book and the words which were put by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant. There is no question of difference of tense at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, there is a special language difficulty, because in the first part the first two verbs are in the present tense in connection with the auxiliary “wird” used later; and in accordance with German language usage the present is to be understood as meaning the future also. In the opinion of the British Prosecution, the first two verbs “deals” and “eliminates” are to be considered past tense, and that is the difference.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of verbal argument on the words of the document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes. Now one last question to the witness.
A while ago Cardinal Innitzer’s talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. What occasioned you to arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer?
VON PAPEN: With our march into Austria and the Anschluss of Austria to the Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany; and the problem, which was to be solved, was winning this country from the interior as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country; for this reason I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future would follow a policy which stood on a Christian basis in Austria.
By arranging this interview, I thought I would be able to do one last service for Austria; that was the reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is the end of the examination.
THE PRESIDENT: I have just two or three questions I should like to ask you.
When did you first hear about the murder of Jews?
VON PAPEN: I believe, My Lord, that that was during the war.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the war lasted 6 years. When during the war?
VON PAPEN: I cannot say with certainty, My Lord. I cannot say on my oath when it was.
THE PRESIDENT: You cannot say with more certainty than that?
VON PAPEN: No; our general knowledge was that the Jews were sent to camps in Poland. But we knew nothing of a systematic extermination of Jews such as we have heard of here.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness whose affidavit your counsel has put in evidence, Marchionini, what do you know about him?
VON PAPEN: Marchionini, My Lord, is a very well-known professor who was employed by the Model Hospital in Ankara and who was also my family doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your volumes of exhibits before you?
VON PAPEN: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the defendant have Volume III?
[The documents were handed to the defendant.]
Volume III; it’s in the affidavit from Marchionini, the last paragraph of the answer to Question 6.
VON PAPEN: One moment, My Lord. I have not found it yet.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no hurry.
VON PAPEN: I have the affidavit now.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have Question 6, or rather the answer to Question 6?
VON PAPEN: The questions are not numbered here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is the last question but one.
VON PAPEN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In the answer to that question, he says this:
“I clearly remember an incident in spring 1944 when I called upon Von Papen at the request of Herr Barlas, the Refugee Commissioner of the Jewish Agency, to request his assistance in saving 10,000 Jews in France from deportation to Poland for extermination. These Jews had formerly held Turkish nationality which they later renounced.”
Then, he says, through your intervention “....the lives of these Jews were saved.” Is that statement true?
VON PAPEN: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: So at any rate by the spring of 1944 you knew that 10,000 Jews in France were about to be deported for extermination?
VON PAPEN: I believe they were to be deported to Poland, My Lord. But we did not know in 1944 that they were to be exterminated. We wanted to protect them from deportation.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought you said the statement was true.
VON PAPEN: For the purpose of exterminating—I believe that was not said to us at the time. The question was only whether I was willing to help keep 10,000 Jews who were in France from being deported to Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. You may return to the dock.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I had three witnesses approved by the Tribunal. The witness Freiherr von Lersner could not come here at the time because of transportation difficulties. He cannot be here before the end of July. After the questioning of the defendant and considering the fact that Lersner has answered an interrogatory, I believe I can dispense with the witness. I regret this, because he is a man who was a companion of the defendant during his whole political career, a witness who would have been especially valuable because of his objectivity in these questions. He was president of the German Peace Delegation at Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have the affidavit or the interrogatory, you can put it in. We do not need any further statements about it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
The second witness was Count Kageneck. Since the questions which were to be asked of Kageneck have been covered in the questioning of the defendant and the cross-examination did not touch upon them, I can also dispense with this witness.
There remains only the witness Dr. Kroll, whom I now call to the stand.
[The witness Kroll took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
HANS KROLL (Witness): Hans Kroll.
THE PRESIDENT: 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: You may sit down.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Witness, what was your occupation in Ankara?
KROLL: I was the First Counsellor of the Embassy, and later Minister. I was in Ankara from the fall of 1936 until April 1943; from April 1939 until April 1943 I worked together with Ambassador Von Papen as his principal collaborator. Daily, mostly in the morning and in the afternoon, we conferred together for several hours, so that I believe I am well informed about the various phases of his activity during this period in Turkey; that is, about his activity during the war.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For explanatory purposes I would like to say that these questions will refer mostly to the peace policy of the defendant.
Did you know Herr Von Papen before he became Ambassador in Ankara?
KROLL: No. We met in Ankara.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Were you a member of the NSDAP?
KROLL: No.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: After taking over the position as Ambassador, Herr Von Papen came to Ankara for a short stay. What was the purpose of this visit?
KROLL: Herr Von Papen wanted, first of all, to present himself to the Turkish Government and to obtain information on the general situation.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen at that time, through his conduct and his statements, express his agreement with German foreign policy and, in particular, with the policy toward Poland? Or did he, as far as he was able, attempt to work against this policy?
KROLL: After the arrival of Herr Von Papen, I was, of course, interested to learn what he imagined the future development of the general situation would be and, in particular, the Polish question. I assumed, of course, that as he came from Germany he was well informed about Hitler’s plans; and I was disappointed to find that he knew no more than I did, which was nothing at all.
Then we discussed the situation in detail; as far as I was able to tell, Herr Von Papen, who spoke very frankly with me about these things, distrusted Hitler’s foreign policy. He was an enemy of war, a true and sincere enemy of war; and, of course, he was also an enemy of war against Poland. He was quite convinced that an agreement could be reached on the Polish question if it could only be made clear to Hitler that a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a World War. He then endeavored, and I must say in very open, clear, and courageous language, to point out this view in his reports. And in his talks with the Turkish statesmen, as well as with the accredited diplomats in Ankara, he attempted to prove that, in fact, a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a conflict with England and France. I often told myself later that he was convinced that if everyone, Germans as well as foreigners, had spoken to Hitler in this clear manner, the war would have been avoided.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: After the outbreak of the Polish war, what was the attitude of Herr Von Papen toward the spread of the war to the Nordic States, Holland, Belgium, and finally, Russia?
KROLL: Herr Von Papen, of course, hoped that during this winter pause some agreement would be reached or at least a meeting arranged. He knew that once the action spread to the west, the war would break out in all its horror and that then it would probably be too late to talk things over. Of course, as far as possible, he looked for mediation in Turkey and he was glad and willing to consider any opportunity, such as had resulted from talks with his friend, the Dutch Minister in Ankara, Van Visser. The motive behind this offer of Visser was Holland’s wish to have the war ended before spring and along with that the fighting in the west, and the goal was to be a talk between Germany and England.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I am interested in knowing what Herr Von Papen’s opinion of such a peace was. Did he think that it would be possible to achieve annexation by way of peace, or what was the purpose of this peace which he had in mind?
KROLL: I believe it is known from the previous activity of Herr Von Papen that he was a friend and believer in European understanding. He knew that this war had not begun because of a territorial problem but because of a principle; that is to say, the prevention of future one-sided aggressive wars. And so, in the restoration of the legal status before the beginning of the war, that is, in the restoration of the status quo ante on the basis of 1938, including the restoration of Poland and Czechoslovakia, he saw the prerequisite for instituting pourparlers.
He considered the second prerequisite for the successful carrying on of such pourparlers the restoration of confidence in the German signature, which was known to have been destroyed through Hitler’s foreign policy. The only question was how this confidence could be restored. He clearly realized that the prerequisite for this was a basic reform of the regime, with the aim of making Germany a legal state once more. Finally, Herr Von Papen, posted as he was in Turkey, believed he saw the possibility of ending the war by reaching an understanding, because Turkey was in a better position for mediation than practically any other state of equal importance in foreign politics. It enjoyed the confidence of both belligerent parties, and that is essential for arranging a pourparler. And so he endeavored, in all his talks with Turkish statesmen, to win Turkey over for a mediation. During all his years in Turkey that was the leitmotif of his work, namely, to bring the war to an end as soon as possible. It is a fact that he finally enjoyed the satisfaction of hearing the Turkish President, in 1942 in a big public speech before the Turkish National Assembly, offering the services of Turkey for mediation between the belligerents.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did you have knowledge of the efforts of Herr Von Papen to avert a spread of the war toward Turkey, contrary to the efforts of certain circles of the Axis partners around Hitler? During the war there were several crises which you might briefly mention.
KROLL: I should like to say first that Papen’s activity in Turkey can be summed up in one word. He considered it his mission to make one and the same the interests of Germany, his country, and the interests of peace. That meant, in effect, that he endeavored to prevent the spreading of the war to Turkey and the Near East and thus create the prerequisite for having Turkey intervene as mediator at the proper time.
Now, as to the crises. I should like to limit myself to those cases in which Herr Von Papen had the impression that the neutrality of Turkey was endangered by the intentions of the Axis partners.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I did before draw your attention to the fact that there was no charge against Von Papen in connection with his activities at Ankara; and also, I may add, that this was a summing-up in one word, I thought.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: There are only a very few cases, Your Lordship. He will tell us about them briefly to complete the general picture.
THE PRESIDENT: The only way in which the evidence can be relevant at all is insofar as it throws light upon Von Papen’s activities before he went to Ankara. That is what I pointed out to you before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I said the other day, Your Lordship, that the personality of a person charged with war conspiracy cannot be judged correctly if only one period of his activity is mentioned. He was at a post where he could do only negative or positive things. It is certainly not irrelevant if at least it may be presented in brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, this witness has been telling us for a considerable time that Papen’s activities were entirely peaceful and that they were endeavors to make Turkey mediate; and what he is doing now is simply going on with further details on the same subject, and it is over a period when, as I say, no charge is made against Von Papen at all by the Prosecution.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: If the Tribunal understands that the Defendant Von Papen actually interpreted his mission in Ankara as a peace mission, I need put no further questions to the witness. Then I come to my last questions.
What was the position of Herr Von Papen in regard to the Party, especially as to the Landesleitung in Ankara?
KROLL: On his arrival Von Papen was received with unconcealed distrust. No wonder, for it was known that he was no National Socialist. During these 4 years in Turkey I did not meet anyone who considered him a National Socialist. His relationship to the Party became worse in the course of the years, and finally it resulted in open conflict. That was in 1942, when the Landesgruppenleiter of the Party in Ankara once told his colleagues, if it rested with him he would have Herr Von Papen shot. Then he was challenged about it and corrected himself. He said he didn’t say that; he only said he would have him put in a concentration camp.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the attitude of Von Papen to the Jewish question?
KROLL: In repeated public speeches as well as in his actions, Herr Von Papen quite clearly opposed the anti-Jewish policy of the Party. He was acquainted with Jewish emigrants. He had Jewish doctors; he bought in Jewish stores. In short, I believe that was one of the main reasons which caused this tension between him and the Party.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen even employ a Jewish woman in the Embassy?
KROLL: As far as I know, yes. I believe that was the wife of his servant, his porter.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: She was employed as a telephone operator there? Frau B...., is that right?
KROLL: Yes.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Do you know a Herr Posemann? Did he have any connection with the German Embassy?
KROLL: At my time, Posemann was not in the German Embassy. I recall that he had a bookstore in Ankara. He had nothing to do with the Embassy.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the attitude of Herr Von Papen in the personnel question? Did he employ National Socialists in the Embassy, or what preferences did he have?
KROLL: It is well known that the Party was never quite satisfied with Von Papen’s choice of workers. That was shown by the very severe consequences on 30 June and after the Anschluss. It was somewhat dangerous to be one of his first co-workers.
Of course, he was regarded with suspicion because he did not make a National Socialist command post out of the Embassy, as was done in the Balkans, and because, when he asked for personnel, he chose people who he knew were not National Socialists. I think I need only mention two names, Herr Von Haeften and Legationsrat Von Trott zu Solz, two men who I believe were executed in connection with 20 July. Of course, it was especially held against Von Papen that he opposed all efforts to remove me from my post. I do not know whether I should go into that.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Please do, briefly.
KROLL: Repeatedly—I could really say every month—an attempt was made to have me eliminated as deputy of Von Papen. Finally when that did not do any good, since Von Papen always opposed these attempts, the Landesgruppenleiter, beating the war drum, and the Ortsgruppenleiter of Ankara and Istanbul in the spring of 1942 came to see Von Papen and officially in the name of the Party demanded that I should be removed from my post. Von Papen refused this once more but finally in 1943 the pressure of the Party became too great, especially since other sources conspired against me, and so then I was excluded.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: A final question: During the years you worked together you became well acquainted with the activity of Von Papen and his personality. Perhaps you can give us a brief picture of the defendant.
KROLL: I already said before...
THE PRESIDENT: No, he has already sketched it at very considerable length and we don’t want it briefly reiterated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Then I shall dispense with this question. I have finished the examination of the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have no questions, My Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel want to ask any questions? Then the witness can retire.
[The witness left the stand.]
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 24 March 1933 was preceded by two Enabling Acts in 1923.”
I refer to Document Book 2, Document 63, an article from The Stars and Stripes of 27 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: Number 63, Page 153.
Furthermore, I refer to Volume II...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. This document that you just put before us is a document of 27 March 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 enlarges on 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 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 15 April 1946. It is Document 93. Date of the interrogatory, 15 April 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal doesn’t 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 III I submit Document 99, an affidavit by Schaffgotsch, 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 1 February 1939, which was mentioned yesterday, and also an excerpt on foreign policy from Hitler’s speech of 23 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 Schröder and Meissner were read into the record. I believe the Prosecution, since they have not made use of the affidavits, will be willing that these parts be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: It was Meissner’s affidavit which was used to some extent, wasn’t it?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, it was. My Lord, I should have thought the most convenient course was that the Tribunal would take it that I have merely put the facts out of the affidavit and would 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 10 to 1.
I call on counsel for the Defendant Speer.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Perhaps the High Tribunal will recall the fact that when we were discussing the evidence material 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 courtroom.
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 depositions will be superfluous. Despite everything, I hope to conduct the examination of the defendant in such a manner that in my estimation I shall be finished in a day and at the most 7 hours.
Now, with the permission of the High Tribunal I should like to call the Defendant Speer to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
[The Defendant Speer took the stand.]
Will you state your full name, please?
ALBERT SPEER (Defendant): Albert Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: 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 defendant repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: Sit down.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, will you please tell the Tribunal about your life up until the time you were appointed Minister?
SPEER: I was born on 19 March 1905. My grandfather and my father were successful architects. At first I wanted to study mathematics and physics; but then I took up architecture, more because of tradition than inclination. I attended the universities at Munich and Berlin; and in 1929 at the age of 24, I was the first assistant at the technical college in Berlin. At the age of 27, 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 onward I exercised my architect’s profession with joy and enthusiasm, for Hitler was quite fanatical on the subject of architecture; and I received many important construction contracts from him. Along with putting up a new Reich Chancellery in Berlin and various buildings on the Party Rally grounds here in Nuremberg, I was entrusted with the replanning of the cities of Berlin and Nuremberg. I had sketched buildings which would have been among the largest in the world, and the carrying through of these plans would have cost no more than 2 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 construction work was carried on until December 1941, and only the winter catastrophe in Russia put an end to it. The German part of the manpower was furnished by me for the reconstruction of the destroyed railroad installations in Russia.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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 10,000 prisoners of war at the disposal of the armament industry.
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.
Herr Speer, what do you have to say about this document?
SPEER: 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 Stalag, the prisoner-of-war installation of the OKW. I took it as a matter of course that they would be put at the disposal of armaments in the larger sense.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, did you ever participate in the planning and preparation of an aggressive war?
SPEER: 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 building. 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.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were you...
SPEER: One moment, please.
The carrying out of these large building plans which Hitler had supported was, actually and especially psychologically, an obstacle to armament.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution asserts you had been a Reichsleiter.
SPEER: No, that is a mistake on the part of the Prosecution.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: You wore the Golden Party Badge. When and why did you receive it?
SPEER: I received the Golden Party Badge from Hitler in 1938. It was because I had completed the plans for a new building program in Berlin. Besides myself, five other artists received this Golden Party Badge at the same time.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were you a member of the Reichstag?
SPEER: In 1941 I was called into the Reichstag by Hitler, that is, outside of an election, as replacement for a member who had left the Reichstag. Hitler at that time told me that in my person he also wanted an artist represented in the Reichstag.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you ever receive a donation?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How did your activity as a Minister start?
SPEER: On 8 February 1942, my predecessor, Dr. Todt, was killed in an airplane crash. Several days later Hitler declared I was to be his successor in his many offices. At that time I was 36 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 called to office as a Minister.
Immediately upon my assuming office, it could be seen that not building but the intensification of armaments was to be my main task, for the heavy losses of material in the battles in Russia during the winter of 1941-1942 was a great blow. Hitler called for considerable intensification of armament production.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: When you assumed office, did you find an office completely set up in the Reich Ministry for Arms and Munitions?
SPEER: No, Dr. Todt had neglected this function of his up until that time; and in addition, in the fall of 1941 Hitler 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—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 work myself into a completely new field; secondly, at the same time to create all organizational prerequisites for my task; and thirdly, to restore the decreasing armament production for the Army and to increase production as much as possible within the next few months. As is very well known today, I succeeded in doing that.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What promises did you receive from Hitler about the duration of your task and about the set-up of your staff of collaborators?
SPEER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: At this point I should like to mention a passage from Document 1435-PS, which deals with a speech delivered by Speer on 24 February 1942, 10 days after he assumed office. This document shows that he was very reluctant about changing his profession of architect for that of 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, found on Page 2 of my document book, Page 5 of the English text and Page 2 of the French and Russian texts, on 8 May 1942 Hitler stated; and I quote: “The Führer 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 Document Number Speer-43 which is a memorandum from Speer to Hitler, dated 20 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 fulfill is a nonpolitical 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.”
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. FLÄCHSNER: Exhibit Number 1, Mr. President.
Herr Speer, can you describe the fundamental principles which you followed in building up your Ministry?
SPEER: 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 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 along 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 against my system in Party circles.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I regret, but 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 Saur and Schieber in this connection are summed up in this answer. Now I shall submit...
THE PRESIDENT: If you will give us the references—give us the names of the witnesses; we can take notice of them afterwards. What is the name?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The witness Saur and we are dealing with his answers to Points 4, 5, and 8 of the interrogatory. The witness Schieber gives a statement regarding this point under Figure 12 of his interrogatory.
Now I should like to submit the speech given by Speer on 9 June 1944 as Exhibit Number 2. It confirms the testimony which the defendant has made about the set-up of his Ministry by engaging honorary industrial co-workers. I shall quote it. I am sorry to say that this speech also is not contained in Your Honor’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. Flächsner, it is a little bit inconvenient to the Tribunal not to have these documents before them. You could not possibly postpone the particular documents that you have not got here until tomorrow morning? Shall we have the supplementary volume then?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: In the Supplementary Volume Number 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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 how it is manufactured.”
Then a few lines further down:
“Among your main tasks, next to the awarding of contracts to these industries, is to supervise the restrictions on types, the specialization of industries, involving under certain circumstances the closing-down of certain enterprises; to further rationalization from the point of view of raw materials, construction, and production; as well as unconditional exchange of experience, without regard to 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 fulfillment of his tasks but without burdening himself with these tasks. The decree of 10 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 bureaucratic official methods of working in his Ministry.
THE PRESIDENT: What speech of Speer are you referring to?
You said the decree of 10 August.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: It is still the same speech, Mr. President, which I just mentioned. The decree is mentioned therein.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn’t get what the year was when you began. What was the year?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The year was 1942, 10 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 new non-bureaucratic forces in his Ministry is shown in the passage from his speech which I would like to quote now:
“Any institution which has lasted for some period of time and which exceeds a certain size has a tendency to become bureaucratic. Even if, in one of the first large attacks on Berlin, large parts 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 that occurrences of that sort will continuously bring new vigor into our work.”
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?
SPEER: I shall try to be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you, Dr. Flächsner, you read us the speech.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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 don’t know.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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 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 think the Prosecution imagined its sphere of activity to be 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 don’t want to...
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No, no, I do not want that either. He is just to give us briefly some of the technical tasks of his Ministry. That is what I wanted to know.
THE PRESIDENT: You don’t seem to be hearing me accurately. Wouldn’t it be better if you put your earphones on?
What I said was that you had read the speech and we didn’t 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 are, ask him. What you asked him was, “Do you wish to supplement the speech?”
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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.
SPEER: 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, by the introduction of assembly-line work, which is customary in the United States but was not yet current in Germany, the work was systematized; and thus machinery and space were utilized to the utmost. Also, it was necessary to amplify the production programs, for example, for fine steel, aluminum, and individual parts like ball bearings and gear wheels.
One of the most important tasks was the development of new weapons and their serial production; and then, beginning with 1943, the reparation of the damage caused by the extraordinarily sudden bombing attacks, which forced us to work with improvised means and methods.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What was the importance of this activity in the sphere of your Ministry?
SPEER: 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: To furnish soldiers for the front, and to supply weapons.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Why was the task of your Ministry purely a war function?
SPEER: Because during peacetime the giving of orders is normally regulated according to supply and demand, but in wartime this regulating factor is lacking.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Therefore it was one of the main tasks of your Ministry to exercise a State control over the distribution of orders?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Then, at first, you had responsibility only for armaments 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 stage of this development, and how thereby the extent of your task grew?
SPEER: 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 armaments and construction programs with altogether 2.6 million workers. In the spring of 1943 Dönitz gave me the responsibility for naval armament as well, and at this point, I had 3.2 million workers. In September of 1943, through an agreement with the Minister of Economy, Herr Funk, the production task of the Ministry of Economy was transferred to me. With that I had 12 million workers working for me.
Finally, I took over the air armament from Göring on 1 August 1944. With that the total production was marshaled under me with 14 million workers. The number of workers applies to the Greater German Reich, not including the occupied countries.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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?
SPEER: The administrative sectors in the various armament offices retained their tasks. In that way, for example, in the Army, the Heereswaffenamt—the Army Ordnance Office—which contained several thousand workers, gave the orders, supervised the carrying out of these orders, and saw to it that delivery of the orders and payment were carried out in a proper manner. Only in that way did I succeed in having the entire armament production—which amounted to 3,000 or 4,000 million marks a month—carried through with an honorary co-worker staff of 6,000 people.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were all armament enterprises of a Wehrmacht branch subordinate to you?
SPEER: No. There actually was a small group of enterprises which were run directly by the Wehrmacht branches with their own workers. These were excepted. They were the munition plants and similar industries, and also the enterprises of the SS.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution is changing you with the fact you share the responsibility for the recruiting of foreign workers and prisoners of war and for taking manpower from concentration camps. What do you say to this?
SPEER: Neither I nor the Ministry was 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 occupation-supervising agencies in the Reich Labor Ministry were responsible for the maintenance of safe and bearable conditions at the places of work; the Trustees of Labor, working under the Plenipotentiary for Labor 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 were responsible for violations against labor discipline, and, finally, the German Labor Front was responsible for representing the interests of labor with the employers.
The centralizing of all of these authorities lay in the hands of the Gauleiter as Reich Defense Commissioner. The fact that the SS put itself and its concentration camp internees outside the control of the State is not a matter with which I or my Ministry was concerned.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Your Codefendant 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?
SPEER; Yes, certainly, as far as the placing of workers is concerned, for one of the subjects of dissension between Sauckel and me was that the appropriate employment of workers in industry itself had to be a matter of the works manager and that this could not be influenced by the labor office. It applied however only to labor recruitment and not to the observance of labor conditions. In this connection, the office of Sauckel was partly responsible as supervising authority.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: To what extent could the works manager conform with the decrees of Sauckel as to labor conditions and so on?
SPEER: The decrees issued by Sauckel were unobjectionable, but the works managers did not always find it possible to carry through the decrees for reasons which were outside their power. The bombing attacks brought about difficulties, disorganized transportation, or destroyed living quarters. It is not possible to make the managers responsible for the observance 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 is not right to push this responsibility on the little works manager.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How far was the factory manager responsible to your Ministry in this regard?
SPEER: Within the framework of the above-mentioned responsibility which industry enjoyed, the armament factory managers had received a semiofficial function from me. This, of course, applied only to technical tasks.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Were there any industries making secret items which were not permitted to be inspected by the Gauleiter? I recall evidence given here where this was reported.
SPEER: There were some industries which concerned themselves with secret matters; but in such cases the works trustee of the Labor Front was represented, and he could report to the Gauleiter on conditions in the factory through the Gauobmann (chief of the Labor Front in a Gau).
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you approve the punishment of people who were unwilling to work?
SPEER: Yes, I considered it right that workers who violated labor 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 work output on the part of 14 million workers could be achieved in the long run only through the good will of the worker himself. This is a bit of experience which applies generally, causing every employer in the world to do all in his power to have his workers satisfied.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you support the efforts made by Sauckel to improve the social conditions of the workers, and if so, why did you?
SPEER: Naturally I supported them, even though I did not have any jurisdiction along that line; and the same reasons which I have just mentioned applied, for our experience showed that labor which is satisfied has much less loss in the way of material. This for me was very important, considering our deficiency in raw materials. It is obvious moreover that the better quality produced by satisfied laborers is of special significance in time of war.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In this connection, I should like to submit three pieces of evidence—first of all, Document Speer-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 civilian Russians 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 Number 4, I would like to submit Document Number Speer-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 and it is specified there that especially the Russian prisoners of war are to receive compensation in the form of tobacco and similar items for special efforts and achievements.
The next piece of evidence is Exhibit Number Speer-5, and it is Document Number 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 put at about the level of the German rations. In this connection it is important 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.
Herr Speer, to whom did the bonuses of the armament industry go, and what did they consist of?
SPEER: 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 determined by the Food Ministry for those who worked longer hours or who did heavy work. In the industries, these bonuses were given to all workers without distinction, including the foreign workers, prisoners of war, and the workers from concentration camps.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: I shall again refer to the fact that these bonuses were also given to armament workers from concentration camps later on when discussing another document.
In what form did your Ministry put its demands to the industries?
SPEER: It is important to note that the demands made of industries were only in the manner of production schedules and it was up to the industries to place their demands as to manpower, machinery, and material on the basis of these schedules.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Was there often an unusual increase in working hours in industry and how did this happen?
SPEER: Working time should remain uniform in modern assembly-line production during the entire month. Due to the bombing attacks, delays in supplying tools and raw materials set in. As a result the number of hours of work varied from 8 to 12 a day. The average, according to our statistics, might have been 60 hours to 64 hours a week.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: What were the working hours of the factory workers who came from concentration camps?
SPEER: They were exactly the same as for all the other workers in the industry, for the workers from concentration camps were on the whole only a part of the workers employed; and these workers were not called upon to do any more work than the other workers in the factory.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: How is that shown?
SPEER: There was a demand on the part of the SS that the inmates of concentration camps be kept in one part of the factory. The supervisors consisted of German foremen and specialists. The working hours, for inherent reasons, had to be co-ordinated with those of the entire industry, for it is a known fact that there is only one rhythm of work in a given industry.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: It is shown unequivocally from two documents which I shall submit in another connection that the workers from concentration camps in army and naval armament and in the air armament branch worked on an average 60 hours per week.
Why, Herr Speer, were special KZ Camps, the so-called work camps, established next to the industries?
SPEER: The work camps were established so that long trips to the factories could be avoided and in this way permit the workers to arrive fresh and ready for work.
Furthermore, the additional food which the Food Ministry had granted for all workers, including the workers from concentration camps, would not have been received by these men if they had come directly from big concentration camps; for then this additional food would have been used up in the concentration camp. In this way, those workers who came from concentration camps received, in full measure, bonuses which were granted in the industry, such as cigarettes or additional food.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Did you know, during your activities, that the workers from concentration camps had advantages if they worked in factories?
SPEER: Yes. My co-workers called my attention to this fact, and I also heard it when I inspected the industries. Of course, a wrong impression should not be created about the number of concentration camp inmates who worked in German industry. In toto, 1 percent of the labor personnel came from concentration camps.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: When you inspected establishments, did you ever see concentration camp inmates?
SPEER: Of course, when on inspection tours of industries I occasionally saw inmates of concentration camps who, however, looked well fed.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Concerning the report which Herr Speer made about concentration camps and the treatment which the inmates received in factories, I refer to a confidential letter from the office chief Schieber to Speer, dated 7 May 1944. I submit it as Document Number Speer-44, Exhibit Number 6.
Mr. President, I am sorry, this will also be found in the second document book, which has not yet been submitted. But it would be a pity if I were not to discuss it at this time, for it fits so well into this pattern. Therefore, I should like to quote briefly from it.
The office chief Schieber writes to his Minister as follows...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flächsner, the Tribunal thinks it would be much more helpful to them to have the document before them.
We are told that the book will be ready tomorrow afternoon, and that it will not be ready before tomorrow afternoon.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Mr. President, I believe that I did everything possible at the time to see that the documents were put at the disposal of the translation department in good time. The difficulty must have arisen from the fact that the interrogatories did not come back in time. I assume that that is what happened.
The quotation from this document is not long, Mr. President. I believe I might as well quote from it now. Or do you wish that...
THE PRESIDENT: No; go on, if it is more convenient to you. I do not mind. You may go on.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Thank you very much.
The office chief Schieber writes to his Minister:
“Considering the care which the manpower from camps received from our factory managers in spite of all the difficulties and considering the general decent and humane treatment which foreign and concentration camp laborers received, both the Jewesses and concentration camp laborers work very efficiently and do everything in order not to be sent back to the concentration camp.
“These facts really demand that we transfer still more concentration camp inmates into armament industries.”
And a few lines further down:
“I have discussed this whole matter in great detail with the delegate of Obergruppenführer Pohl, Sturmbannführer Maurer, and especially pointed out that by a decentralized dividing-up of concentration camp laborers it might be possible appropriately to utilize their forces while affording them better nourishment and satisfactory lodging.”
Then it says:
“Moreover, Maurer especially points out....”
THE PRESIDENT: You need not make such long pauses as you are making.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: “Aside from that, Maurer especially points out that Obergruppenführer Pohl constantly improved the food situation of concentration camp inmates working in factories and that by granting additional protein foods, given under constant medical supervision, a marked increase in weight was obtained and thereby better work achieved.”
In another document we see that the employment of concentration camp workers in armament industries is recommended, in that advantages accrue to these workers and that for this reason concentration camp inmates are glad to work in armament industries.
I refer, in this connection, to Document 1992-PS, which may be found on Page 11 of the document book. It is Page 14 in the English text. This document shows that already in 1937 inmates of concentration camps were being employed in workshops and that this work was quite popular.
Herr Speer, what do you know about the working conditions in subterranean factories?
SPEER: The most modern equipment for the most modern weapons had been housed in subterranean factories. Since we did not have many of these subterranean works at our disposal, we had to house in the main this latest equipment there. This equipment required perfect conditions of work—air which was dry and free from dust, good lighting facilities, big fresh air installations, so that the conditions which applied to such a subterranean factory would be about the same as those in a night shift in a regular industry.
I should like to add that contrary to the impression which has been created here in Court, these subterranean factories, almost without exception, were staffed with German workers, because we had a special interest in having these modern installations manned by the best workers which were at our disposal.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Can you tell us about how many of these factories there were?
SPEER: It was an insignificant number at the end of the war. We were using 300,000 square meters of subterranean premises and were planning for 3,000,000 square meters.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, in the year 1943 you visited the concentration camp at Mauthausen? Why did you visit this camp?
SPEER: I learned, when I inspected industries at Linz, that along the Danube, near the camp at Mauthausen, a large harbor installation and numerous railroad installations were being put up so that the paving stone coming from the quarry at Mauthausen could be transported to the Danube. This was purely a peacetime matter which I could not tolerate at all, for it violated all the decrees and directives which I had issued. I gave short notice of an impending visit, for I wanted to ascertain on the spot whether this construction work was an actual fact and request stoppage of the work. This is an example for giving directives in this field even within the economic administrative sphere of the SS. I stated on that occasion that it would be more judicious to have these workers employed during wartime in a steel plant at Linz rather than in peacetime construction.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Will you describe the visit to the camp?
SPEER: My visit ostensibly followed the prescribed program as already described by the witness Blaha. I saw the kitchen barracks, the washroom barracks, and one group of barracks used as living quarters. These barracks were made of massive stone and were models as far as modern equipment is concerned. Since my visit had only been reported a short time in advance, in my opinion it is out of the question that big preparations could have been made before my visit. Nevertheless, the camp or the small part of the camp which I saw made a model impression of cleanliness. However, I did not see any of the workers, any of the camp inmates, since at that time they were all engaged in work. The entire inspection lasted perhaps 45 minutes, since I had very little time at my disposal for a matter of that kind and I had inner repulsive feelings against even entering such a camp where prisoners were being kept.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The main purpose of your visit then was to request the stoppage of the work which you considered nonessential to the war effort?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: On your visit were you able to learn about the working conditions in the camp?
SPEER: No, I could not do that, since no workers were to be seen in the camp and the harbor installations were so far from the street that I could not see the men who were working there.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation that came through to me was that it was against him spiritually to enter such places. Was that correct? Well, what did you say?
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No. I asked him whether on the occasion of this visit he was able to learn about the working conditions which applied in this camp. That was my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you say anything about “spiritually”?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: No.
Did you learn, on your visit at Mauthausen or on another occasion, about the cruelties which took place at this concentration camp and at other concentration camps?
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Now, I should like to conclude my questions on the utilization of workers by asking you: Did you have any interest in the fact that a healthy and sufficiently trained labor supply should be at your disposal?
SPEER: Naturally I had the utmost interest along this line even though I was not competent for this. As from 1942 we had mass production in armament, and this system with assembly-line workers demands an extraordinary large percentage of skilled workers. Because of drafting for military service, these skilled laborers had become especially important, so that any loss of a worker or the illness of a worker meant a big loss for me as well.
Since a worker needed an apprenticeship of 6 to 12 weeks and since even after this for a period of about 6 months a great amount of scrap must be allowed for—for it takes about that much time before quality work can be expected—it is evident that the care of skilled workers in industry was an added worry for us.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: The Prosecution has mentioned the so-called extermination by work. Could a change of personnel, which would have taken place through extermination by work, be tolerated at all by an industry?
SPEER: No. A change in the workers, in the way in which it was described here, cannot be borne by any industry. It is out of the question that in any German industry anything like that took place without my hearing about it; and I never heard anything of that sort.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Herr Speer, the Prosecution asserts that you applied means of terror and brutality so that the achievements of the compulsory workers would be increased to the utmost...
SPEER: No.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: Just a moment. I have not finished. The Prosecution is of the opinion that you used SS and Police against recalcitrant workers and favored and recommended the use of concentration camps for such. Is that correct?
SPEER: No, not in that form, for that was against my interests. There were efforts in Germany to bring about increased productivity through very severe compulsory measures. These efforts did not meet with my approval. It is quite out of the question that 14 million workers can be forced to produce satisfactory work through coercion and terror, as the Prosecution maintains.
DR. FLÄCHSNER: In this connection, please refer to Page 7 of the English text, Page 4 of the French text. I should like to quote from Document Number Speer-43. It says there:
“I do not believe that the second system which might be applied in our economy, the system of compulsion by plant commissars, or extensive proceedings and punishment when output is insufficient, can lead to success.”
Now, Mr. President, I have come to the end of my first part.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will adjourn.