dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
SPEER: No, not personally, but his local offices under him participated in rendering aid.
DR. SERVATIUS: But he had to turn to you for any material, since everything was confiscated for armament?
SPEER: As far as building material was concerned, he could get it only from me, and he did in fact receive large amounts of it. I must add that Sauckel himself did not receive them but, as far as I recall, generally the German Labor Front, since the DAN actually took care of the camps.
DR. SERVATIUS: Which were the responsible agencies? Were you not the agency which cared for the concerns?
SPEER: Not in the sense which you mean. You want me to answer that I was responsible for the working conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, the Tribunal thinks that we have been over all this already with the witness.
DR. SERVATIUS: MR. PRESIDENT, I think this question has not yet been dealt with. Yesterday internal administration was discussed. A second series of agencies existed for taking care of the factories, namely, through the Armament Commission and the Armament Inspection Office; and there was a third possibility open to the witness Speer for making contact with the factories through the Reich Labor Efficiency Engineers. In this connection I wanted to ask him another question.
SPEER: I shall be glad to explain it.
DR. SERVATIUS: Did not the Labor Efficiency Engineers constitute your only real possibility of improving conditions in the concerns, and did you have direct supervision?
SPEER: I must define for you the task of the labor engineers; it was an engineering task, that is shown in their designation.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was limited to this engineering task?
SPEER: Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no more questions.
DR. FLACHSNER: Mr. President, I have only two questions arising out of the cross-examination. One of the questions is this: Herr Speer, I refer once more to the answer which you gave to Justice Jackson at the end of the cross-examination, and to clarify that answer I would like to ask you this: In assuming a common responsibility, did you want to acknowledge measurable guilt or coresponsibility under the penal law, or did you want to record a historical responsibility before your own people and before history?
SPEER: That question is a very difficult one to answer; it is actually one which the Tribunal will decide in its verdict. I only Granted to say that even in an authoritarian system the leaders must accept a common responsibility, and that it is impossible for them to dodge that common responsibility after the catastrophe, for if the war had been won the leaders would also presumably have laid claim to common responsibility. But to what extent that is punishable under law or ethics I cannot decide, and it was not my purpose to decide.
DR. FLACHSNER: Thank you. Secondly, the American Prosecution showed you a number of documents on conditions which for the most part, I believe even entirely, concerned the firm of Krupp. You said that you yourself had no knowledge of these conditions. Did I understand you correctly?
SPEER: I did not know the details necessary to be able to judge these documents individually.
DR. FLACHSNER: I have no more questions, Mr. President. However, I must reserve the right, in connection with these affidavits which are evidence against my client-the position is actually not quite clear to me-to decide whether it is necessary to cross-examine the person who made the affidavits. I regret that, but I may possibly have to do it. I had no previous knowledge that these documents would be introduced here. Then, Mr. President, I need just 5 minutes to finish my documentary evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Flachsner, with reference to these affidavits, if you want to cross-examine any witness you must apply in writing to do so, and you must do so promptly. Because I think I am correct in saying that there are only two other of the defendants to be examined, and unless the application comes in soon, it will not be possible to find the witnesses or to bring them here in time. Now, you say you will finish in 5 minutes?
DR. FLACHSNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you may as well finish now, then. However, Dr. Flachsner, the Tribunal has one or two questions to put to the defendant.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Defendant, you spoke of not using the western prisoners in war industry and in the making of munitions, do you remember?
SPEER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Were there regulations to that effect?
SPEER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): There were regulations to that effect?
SPEER: Yes, as far as I know, but my knowledge need not be precise. I only recall talks with Keitel about employment in individual cases, and these Keitel turned down. Otherwise I had no knowledge.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You never saw any regulation which made that distinction, did you?
SPEER: No.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): And with respect to civilians from nonoccupied countries, they were used in war industries, I suppose, were they not?
SPEER: Foreign workers were employed without consideration for any agreement.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): That is just what I want to know. Now, you said the concentration camps had a bad reputation? I think those were your words, were they not, a bad reputation? Is that right?
SPEER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): What did you mean by that phrase "bad reputation"? What sort of reputation, for what?
SPEER: That is hard to define. It is-it was known in Germany that a stay in a concentration camp was an unpleasant matter. I also knew that but I did not know any details.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Well, even if you did not know any details, is not "unpleasant" putting it a little mildly? Was not the reputation that violence and physical punishment were used in the camps? Was not that the reputation that you meant? Is it not fair to say that, really?
SPEER: No, that is going a little too far, on the basis of what we knew. I assumed that there was ill-treatment in individual cases, but I did not assume that it was the rule. I did not know that.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Did you not know that violence or physical force was used to enforce the regulations if the internees did not obey them?
SPEER: No, I did not know it in this form. I must say that during the time in which I was a Minister, strange though as it sounds, I became less disturbed about the fate of concentration camp inmates than I had been before, because while I was in office I heard only good and calming reports about the concentration camps from official sources. It was said that the food was being improved, and so on and so forth.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Only one other question. I was interested in what you said at the end about all of the leaders being responsible for certain general principles, certain great things. Can you say any one of those things? What did you mean? What principles? Did you mean going on with the war, for instance?
SPEER: I think that, for example, the beginning of the war or the end of the war are such basic principles. I think . . .
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): You deem the beginning of the war and the end of the war basic principles for which the leaders were responsible?
SPEER: Yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (Mr. Biddle): Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock. [The defendant left the stand.] You may as well finish tonight, Dr. Flachsner.
DR. FLACHSNER: Yes, gladly. I should like, supplementing yesterday's evidence, to submit a letter from Speer to Sauckel of 28 January 1944, which was quoted here yesterday; I shall give it Exhibit Number 31. Then, another letter from Speer to Sauckel of 11 March 1944; that will be Exhibit Number 32. Then, the execution order for the destruction decree mentioned by the defendant yesterday, which the Tribunal will find on Page 81 of the English document book; I submit it as Exhibit 33. Then, as Exhibit 34, I should like to submit a letter from Hitler to Speer dated 21 April 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the date of Exhibit 33? You said Page 81. Did you mean Page 81 of the original, which is 85 in the English?
DR. FLACHSNER: No, in the English text, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the document?
DR. FLACHSNER: It is an execution order for the Fuehrer decree of 19 March 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FLACHSNER: The next document, Mr. President, is on Page 55 of the English text and Page 52 of the original, the same as the French text. It is the letter from Hitler to Speer, already mentioned, dealing with the commission given to Dorsch for the construction of fighter planes. That is Exhibit Number 34. I have to submit Number 35 later. As Exhibit Number 36 I submit the interrogatory of Kehrl. It Is signed by the witness Hans Kehrl, and the signature is certified by an officer of the internment camp; the signature of a representative of the Prosecution and my own signature are also on it.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that-36?
DR. FLACHSNER: 36 is on Page 105 in the original. On Page 113 of the Document Book 2, Mr. President, is an excerpt from the interrogation of the witness Schieber, which I submit as Exhibit Number 37. It is submitted in German and English. The record is certified by a member of the Prosecution and by me. In the second book, on Page 127, the Court will find the interrogation of the witness Schmelter, which I submit as Exhibit Number 38. It is certified in the same way. On Page 136 of Document Book 2 I submit the testimony of the witness Hupfauer, who was also mentioned here today. That will be Exhibit Number 39. On Page 142 of Document Book 2 the Court will find the interrogation of the witness Saur. I submit this as Exhibit Number 40, again in English and German. The English record is certified by a member of the Prosecution and by me. On Page 148 of my second document book the Court will find the record of the examination of Frank, carried out in Ludwigsburg by the Prosecution and by me. The record is certified by the Prosecution and by me.
THE PRESIDENT: That was 41, was it not? '
DR. FLACHSNER: That was Number 41, Mr. President. On Page 153 of the document book is the record of the examination of Rohland, which will be Exhibit Number 42. This also is in English and in German, and is certified in the usual way. On Page 165 of the document book is the record of the examination of the witness Kempf, carried out on 3 May at Kransberg by the Prosecution and by me. It is certified in the usual way, and will be Exhibit Number 43.
THE PRESIDENT: How many more have you got?
DR. FLACHSNER: There are two more. On Page 176 of the document book is the interrogatory of Guderian, who was questioned at Hersbruck The record is in English and German, and the English is certified by me and the Prosecution. That is Exhibit Number 44. On Page 181 of the document book-this will be Exhibit Number 45-the Court will find the testimony of the witness Stahl, also in English and German, the English being certified by the Prosecution and by me. Finally, on Page 186 of the document book there is the interrogatory of Karl Brandt, which is certified by the camp authorities. It is in English and German, and will be Exhibit Number 46.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
DR. FLACHSNER: That is all. Mr. President, yesterday the defendant referred to excerpts of the Fuehrer conference of 3 to 5 January. This document has not yet been translated, and with your permission I shall submit it later. The Prosecution has already seen it and has no objection. Those are the documents I wanted to submit. I believe that the Court does not wish to hear comments on the documents in the document book, especially as the documents have already been presented by the Russian Prosecution in great detail. That concludes my case of the Defendant Speer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn. [The Tribunal adjourned until 22 June 1946 at 1000 hours.]
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Ludinghausen, the Tribunal sees that you have a supplementary request for an additional witness, Ambassador Francois-Poncet; is that so? And for some additional documents?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes, Mr. President. May I, with reference to the application for M. Francois-Poncet, make the following remarks. The Ambassador, Francois-Poncet, has in the meantime replied to the summons which he received and I got this letter 2 days ago through the French Delegation, though only a copy thereof. The French Prosecution, however, have promised me that the original will be submitted to the Tribunal and they, as well as the British Delegation, have no objections to its being used. Therefore, the application for the interrogation of the witness . ..
THE PRESIDENT: The letter being used, you mean?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: The calling and examination of the witness is therefore unnecessary, likewise this application of mine.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems a convenient course to the Tribunal, subject, of course, to any question of relevance in the actual subject matter of the letter. Now, as to the documents which you are asking for, does the Prosecution object to those or not?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes, in two cases, which I have already crossed off. The two documents which I also wanted to submit and which have been objected to by the Prosecution I eliminated, and they are no longer in my document books.
THE PRESIDENT: On the document before me the Prosecution appears to have objected to three of them. I do not know whether that is true or not.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Two, Numbers 93 and 101 from my document books-they have been objected to and I have dropped them.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I beg your pardon, I was wrong. Well then, you have dropped them; that is all right. You may continue, please.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I first of ail say that up to now the translations have been completed only for Document Book Number 1. That book is already available. The others, however, are not yet ready. I should nevertheless like to be permitted first of all to cite the documents from the document books in connection with the respective questions, giving their numbers and short descriptions and also possibly quoting short passages from them, so that the context may remain intact and we may be saved the trouble of submitting the documents again after they have been translated, which after all would be a waste of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean to use the documents before you have called the defendant?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: No, no, in the course of the examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes-then you propose to call the defendant?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes. [The Defendant Von Neurath took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your name, please?
CONSTANTIN VON NEURATH (Defendant): Constantin von Neurath.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God-the Almighty and Omniscient-that I win speak the pure truth-and will withhold and add nothing. [The defendant repeated the oaths]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Herr Von Neurath, will you please give us a brief account of your family background, your education at home, and your schooling?
VON NEURATH: I was born on 2 February 1873. On my father's side I come from an old family of civil servants. My grandfather, my great-grandfather, and my great-great-grandfather were Ministers of Justice and Foreign "Affairs in Wurttemberg. On my mother's side I come from a noble Swabian family whose ancestors were mostly officers in the Imperial Austrian Army. Until my twelfth year I was brought up in the country in extreme simplicity, with particular emphasis laid on the duty of truthfulness, responsibility, patriotism, and a Christian way of life, along with Christian tolerance of other religions.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Later you took your school certificate examination and went to the university. Where and when?
VON NEURATH: After having graduated from high school I studied law in Tubingen and Berlin and there passed the two state law examinations.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: After your examinations, what official positions did you hold up until the moment when you were appointed Reich Foreign Minister?
VON NEURATH: In 1901 I entered the Foreign Service of the Reich. First of all, I worked at the central office in Berlin, and then in 1903 I was assigned to the consulate general in London. From there I returned to the Foreign Office in Berlin and I worked there in all the departments of that office. In 1914...
THE PRESIDENT: When?
VON NEURATH: 1914.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you mean you were in London for 11 years?
VON NEURATH: Nearly, yes. Then I was sent to Constantinople as an Embassy Counsellor. At the end of 1916 I retired from the diplomatic service because of disagreement with the policy of Reich Chancellor Von Bethmann-Hollweg. Then I became the head of the Cabinet of the King of Wurttemberg until the revolution at the end of 1918. In February 1919 the Social Democrat People's Commissioner, Ebert, requested me to return to the diplomatic service. I did so, with the reservation that I might keep my own political opinions, and then became Minister to Denmark, where my principal task was to handle the differences we had with Denmark over the solaced Schleswig question. In December 1921 I became Ambassador to Rome, with the Italian Government, where I remained until 1930. There I experienced the Fascist revolution, with its bloody events and results. At the outset I had sharp arguments with Mussolini, which gradually, however, developed into a relationship of confidence on his part toward me. During the first World War I was a captain in a grenadier regiment, and in December 1914 I was decorated, for bravery in action, with the Iron Cross, First Class. I was wounded, and then returned to my post in Constantinople.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: What is your attitude toward the Church and religion?
VON NEURATH: As I have already told you, I was educated as a Christian, and at all times I have considered the Christian Church and Christian morality the foundation of the State. Therefore I tried again and again to persuade Hitler not to allow the anticlerical attitude of certain groups in the Party to become effective. In the case of excesses committed by Party organizations and individuals against the Church and the monasteries and so on I have always intervened, insofar as I was able.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to quote from the affidavit given by Provincial Bishop Wurm in Stuttgart. This affidavit is Number Neurath-1 in my Document Book 1. I quote: "I became acquainted with Herr Von Neurath at the time of the Church struggle. I thought that I could turn to him as a man from the same province and as a descendant of a family which was friendly toward the Protestant Church. His father was a member of the Protestant provincial synod. I was not disappointed in this confidence. He received me frequently and often arranged conferences for me with other members of the Reich Cabinet. In particular he assisted me in the autumn of 1934, together with Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick and Reich Minister of Justice Dr. Gurtner, when I had been removed from my office and interned in my apartment because of illegal interventions on the part of Reich Bishop Ludwig Muller as a result of my resistance to the domination of the Church by the German Christians. He, obtained my release from detention and my reinstatement by the State as Bishop. He also brought about a discussion in the Reich Chancellery, the result of which was a repeal of the illegal legislation on the part of the Reich Bishop. Also during later periods of the Church struggle I always found a friendly reception and full understanding on his part for the concerns of the Church." I should also like to refer to an affidavit which appears under Number Neurath-2 in my document book. It is an affidavit from an old and intimate friend of the defendant, the lawyer and notary Manfred Zimmerman of Berlin. I should like to quote just a brief passage from this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think it is necessary to read all of it. The Tribunal will, of course, consider it.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Very well, but I had attached importance to it because this second document comes from a man who has known the defendant very closely for 40 years. I was interested, for that reason, in quoting, besides the declaration of Bishop Wurm, a statement by a man who knows his daily life. However, Mr. President, if you believe that it is not necessary for me to read it here, then I shall only refer to it.
THE PRESIDENT: You need not read it at all, but you can draw our attention to the most material passages.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, the passage which I was going to quote is on Page 5 of that affidavit, under Paragraph 5. It begins: "Constantin von Neurath, according to his family, education, and development, is a man of sound character in every respect . . ." Then I can dispense with that. I should like to present a statement from Pastor Roller and the Mayor of Enzweihingen. This is the community in which Von Neurath resides. This is Number Neurath-24 in my Document Book 1. Herr Von Neurath, what, in this connection, was your attitude toward the Jewish problem?
VON NEURATH: I have never been anti-Semitic. My Christian and humanitarian convictions prevented that. A repression of the undue Jewish influence in all spheres of public and cultural life, as it had developed after the first World War in Germany, however, I regarded as desirable. But I opposed all measures of violence against the Jews as well as propaganda against the Jews; I considered the entire racial policy of the National Socialist Party wrong, and for that reason I fought against it. After the Jewish laws had been put in force, I opposed their being carried out and kept non-Aryan members of the Foreign Office as long as was possible. Not until after the Party had obtained the decision regarding the appointment of civil servants did I have to confine myself to defending individual persons. I enabled several of them to emigrate. The so-called racial law was drawn up by a racial fanatic in the Party, and was passed in Nuremberg in spite of my emphatic protest.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: In this connection I should like to refer to and read a short sentence from an affidavit by the former Ambassador Dr. Curt Prufer. This document is Number Neurath-4 in my document book. Ambassador Pruler was Ministerial Director in the Foreign Office when Von Neurath was Foreign Minister. I should like to quote briefly concerning his attitude toward officials of different faiths.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us the page?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: It is Page 9 of the German.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and our Page 21?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: Yes. "Neurath in many cases intervened in behalf of officials of the Foreign Office who, because of their race, their religion, or their former membership in other parties, were objected to by the National Socialists. Thus, until Hindenburg's death, and as long as Neurath still had sole power in all questions relating to civil servants, a number of officials of Jewish or mixed blood remained in their positions. In fact, there were even some promotions of such officials. "Not until after Hindenburg's death, when the Reich Ministers as well as other department chiefs were deprived of the final decision in all questions relating to civil servants by a decree of the Fuehrer, and this power was transferred to the Deputy of the Fuehrer, did the radicalism of the Party penetrate this sector too, and then, particularly after Neurath's resignation, it assumed increasingly harsh forms."
THE PRESIDENT: Which answer was that?
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: That was the affidavit of the former Ambassador Dr. Curt Prufer.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know that. I wanted to know which answer it was.
DR. VON LUDINGHAUSEN: I see, Number 4. It is an affidavit, it is not a questionnaire in this sense. ,
THE PRESIDENT: It is paragraphed in our copy, at any rate.