dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Tell us, how was contact between your Ministry and the German Labor Front maintained and was there contact between the two organizations?
SPEER: There was a liaison man between the German Labor Front and me, just as between all other important offices in the Reich.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Would you not name that officer?
SPEER: It was my witness Hupfauer, who later was chief of the central office under me.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You testified that a number of concerns, such important concerns as the textile industry, processing of aluminum and lumber, et cetera, should not be included' in the list of war economy concerns. Did I understand you correctly? Did you maintain that?
SPEER: No, that is a mistake. That must have been wrongly translated.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: How should I understand it correctly?
SPEER: I think there are two mistakes here in the translation. In the first place, I did not speak of war economy in my testimony, but I used the term "armament." I said that this term "armament" includes textile concerns and wood and leather processing concerns. But armament and war economy are two entirely different terms.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And the textile industry is wholly excluded from the term "armament"?
SPEER: I said that various textile concerns were incorporated in armament industry, although they did not produce armaments in the strict sense of the word.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Did not the textile industry manufacture parachute equipment for the Air Force?
SPEER: Yes, but if you consult the Geneva Agreement on prisoners of war, you will see that it is not forbidden to manufacture that-for prisoners of war to manufacture that. I have the text here, I can read it to you.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And do you want us seriously to accept that powder can be manufactured without cellulose, and are you for that reason narrowing down the conceptions of war industry and war production?
SPEER: No, you have misunderstood me completely. I wanted to make the concept "armament industry" as broad as possible, in order to prove that this modern conception of armament industry is something entirely different from the industries producing armaments in the sense of the Geneva Convention.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right. You spoke of your objection to using foreign workers, and your motives for this objection were indicated by Schmelter in his testimony. He was in charge of labor in your Ministry. This testimony was presented by your defense counsel; I shall read only one paragraph, and will you please confirm whether it is correct or not: In so far as he-Speer-repeatedly mentioned to us that utilization of foreign workers would create great difficulties for the Reich with regard to the food supply for these workers . . ." Were these the motives for your objection?
SPEER: The translation must be incorrect here. I know exactly how the text reads and what the sense of this statement is. The sense is entirely correct. The question was this: If we brought new workers to Germany, we had first of all to make available to them the basic calories necessary to feed a human being. But the German laborers still working in Germany had to receive these basic calories in any case. Therefore, food was saved if I employed German workers in Germany and the additional calories for persons doing heavy work and working long hours could again have been increased. That was the sense of Schmelter's statement.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Defendant Speer, you have evaded a direct answer to my question.
SPEER: I will gladly...
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You are now going into details which are of no interest to me. I asked you whether I understood this particular passage, which I read from the testimony of Schmelter, correctly or not.
SPEER: No, it was falsely translated. I should like to have the original in German.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The original is in your document book and you can read it. I will pass to the next question.
SPEER: Yes, but it is necessary to show it to me now. In crossexamination by the Russian prosecutor I do not really need to bring my document book to the stand with me.
THE PRESIDENT: You must give him the document, if you have got the document.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: MR. PRESIDENT, this document is contained in the document book presented by the defense counsel. The Tribunal has the original, I have only the Russian translation. Schmelter's affidavit was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it, Dr. Flachsner?
DR. FLACHSNER: Yes. [The document was handed to the defendant.]
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SPEER: On what page, approximately?
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It is Page 129 in the Russian translation, answer to Question 13, the last paragraph.
SPEER: Yes. It says in the German text: "He-that is, Speer-referred repeatedly to the fact that the employment of foreign workers would cause greater difficulties in production and would mean that the Reich would have to supply additional food." (Document Speer-38) I explained that. I explained the reasons for that; I think, it you are not convinced, that this explanation of mine is also mentioned later in the affidavit.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Your deputy, Schieber, in reply to the question whether Speer knew that the workers which he requested from Sauckel were brought from occupied territories, answered: "Well, that was the great debatable question. We always said that Sauckel would only create partisans if he brought workers to Germany against their will." (Document Speer-37) In connection with this, I am saying that you not only knew that the people who were working in your industries were enslaved workers, but that you also knew of the methods which Sauckel used. Do you confirm that?
SPEED: I knew that some of the workers were brought to Germany against their will. I have already said so. I also said that the effects of this compulsory recruitment I considered wrong and disastrous for production in the occupied territories. This is a repetition of my testimony.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It is of no use to repeat your testimony. Tell me, did you not insist that Sauckel supply you with forcibly recruited workers beyond the demands which you had already made? I shall remind you of your letter to Sauckel; this will expedite the proceedings. On 6 January 1944 you wrote to Sauckel: "Dear Party-Comrade Sauckel, I ask you, in accordance with your promise to the Fuehrer, to assign these workers so that the orders issued to me by the Fuehrer may be carried out on time. In addition there is an immediate need of 70,000 workers for the Todt Organization to meet the time limit set on the Atlantic Wall by the Fuehrer in Order Number 51; notification of the need for this labor was given more than 6 months ago, but it has not yet been complied with." (Document Speer-11) Did you write this letter? Do you admit it?
SPEER: Yes. I even admit that I included this letter in my document book, and for the following reasons: The conference at which Hitler ordered that 1 million workers were to be brought from France to Germany took place on 4 January 1944. On the same day I told General Studt, my representative in France, that the requirements for blocked industries in France were to be given priority over the requirements for Germany. Two days later I told Sauckel, in the letter which you now have in your hand, that my need in France amounted to 800,000 workers for French factories and that in addition requirements for workers on the Atlantic Wall had not yet been fully met, that this labor was therefore to be provided first, before the 1 million workers were sent to Germany. I said yesterday already that through these two letters the program which had been ordered by Hitler was brought to a standstill, and that it was the purpose to inform the military commander, who also received this letter, that the workers were to be used first in France; that information was very valuable to the military commander.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Defendant Speer, did you know that in the factories of which you were in charge, some of the forced laborers were convicts whose prison terms had already expired? Did you know that?
SPEER: During my period of office I did not know it; I learned of it here from a document.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You claim that you did not know it?
SPEER: I know what you mean; it is mentioned in the Schieber letter of 4 May 1944, which is in my document book, but I could not possibly remember all these details.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You cannot remember, but Schieber, on 4 May 1944, in a special letter addressed to you personally, wrote to you about it and you could not possibly not have known it. The fact that this letter is included in your document book does not change the situation.
SPEER: On the basis of this letter I then wrote to Himmler with regard to the workers who had finished their prison sentences. I can submit this letter at any time, I left it out to avoid making the document book too long. This letter shows that I asked Himmler to let those workers who had served their sentences remain free. Himmler's point of view was that these workers should remain in custody.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Do you remember the letter from the OKW of 8 July 1943, on the subject of manpower for mining? Do you remember this letter and the contents of this letter?
SPEER: No.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I shall remind you. This document was submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-455 and has been quoted here several times. I think, therefore, that it is not necessary to read ail of it into the record, but I will read just a few basic points. The Fuehrer's order to assign 300,000 Russian prisoners of war to coal mining is mentioned in this letter. Do you remember this order?
SPEER: I should like to see it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You will be given a chance to see it. In Paragraph 2 of this document it is mentioned that: "All prisoners of war taken in the East after 5 July 1943 are to be brought to the camps of the OKW and from there, either directly or by barter through other employing agencies, will be turned over to the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor for commitment in coal mining." In Paragraph 4 of this document it is mentioned that: "All male prisoners from 16 to 55 years of age captured in guerrilla fighting in the operational army area of the eastern commissariats, the Government General, and the Balkans, will in the future be considered prisoners of war. The same applies to males in the newly conquered regions of the East. They are to be sent to prisoner-of-war camps and from there committed for labor in the Reich." This letter was also sent to you and therefore you knew what kind of methods were used to obtain workers for your coal industry. Do you admit that?
SPEER: No, I do not admit it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right.
SPEER: I do not know whether you mean that the prisoners who were taken in the fighting against partisans in the operational area were to be sent to the mines. I assumed at the time that they were taken prisoner in battle, and a partisan captured in battle is, of course, a prisoner of war. Here the assertion was made that in particular the prisoners taken in the partisan areas were not treated as prisoners of war. But this document seems to me to be evidence to the contrary. It shows that prisoners taken in the partisan areas were treated as prisoners of war.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I am definitely not interested in your comments on this document. I asked you whether you knew in what particular way and through what particular methods you were receiving workers for your coal industry, and you answered that you did not admit knowledge of it; I think that covers the question with regard to the document. We will pass on to the next document. On 4. January 1944 you participated in a meeting which took place in Hitler's headquarters and at which the question of utilization of manpower for 1944 was discussed. You stated that you would have to have an additional 1.3 million workers. During this meeting it was decided that Sauckel would furnish not less than 4 million workers from occupied territory in 1944, and that Himmler would help him to supply this number. The minutes of the meeting, signed by Lammers, stated that the decision of all participants in the meeting was unanimous. Do you acknowledge that, as a participant in this meeting and as a Reich Minister, you are among those responsible for the forced deportation to Germany of a few million workers?
SPEER: But the program was not carried through in any way. This program, specifically, was not carried through.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Defendant Speer, if you do not answer my questions, we shall lose too much time.
THE PRESIDENT: But' General Raginsky, from the outset of this defendant's evidence, if I understand it, he admitted that he knows that prisoners of war and other workers were brought to Germany forcibly, against their will. He has never denied it.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, MR. PRESIDENT, he admitted it. But the question now is whether he admits that he himself is responsible for the decision taken at this meeting which he attended on 4 January. He did not answer that and I am asking him again. [Turning to the defendant.] I shall repeat my question. I am not asking you whether Sauckel really carried' through this program. I am asking you whether on 4 January you participated in a decision taken at Hitler's headquarters that Sauckel, with the assistance of Himmler, should deport 4 million people to forced labor. You participated in that decision, did you not? It is obvious from the minutes which state that the decision was unanimous. Now, on that basis, do you accept responsibility for this decision?
SPEER: As far as my sector and my responsibility in it are concerned, I assume that the Tribunal will decide the extent of my responsibility. I cannot establish it myself.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Now, I shall read to you an excerpt from a document presented to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number USA-184. This document mentions a decision of Sauckel to the effect that a levy and recruitment of two age classes-1926 and 1927-will be carried through in all newly occupied Eastern Territories. This document also states that "the Reich Minister for armaments and munitions approved this order," and the document ends with the following sentence: "Levy and recruitment must be speeded up and carried through with the greatest energy and all appropriate measures must be applied." Do you remember this order?
SPEER: I read this document here; it is correct.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Now we shall pass on to the next question. You stated here that you were highly critical of Hitler's entourage. Will you please name the persons whom you criticized?
SPEER: No, I will not name them.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You will not name these persons because you did not criticize anybody; am I to understand you in that way?
SPEER: I did criticize them, but I do not consider it right to name them here.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Well, I will not insist on an answer to this question. You had some differences with Hitler. Tell us, did they begin after you had convinced yourself that Germany had lost the war?
SPEER: I made clear statements on this point yesterday.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You spoke here quite extensively about your opposition to the destruction of industries in the western section of the Reich before the withdrawal of the German Armed Forces. But did you not do that only because you counted upon the reoccupation of these regions in the near future and because you wanted to save these industries for your own use?
SPEER: No, that was not the reason. I explained in detail yesterday that this served as my pretext to prevent the destruction. If, for instance, you look at my memorandum dealing with the motor fuel situation, it is obvious that I did not believe a reoccupation was possible, and I do not think that any military leader in 1944 considered a reoccupation of France, Belgium, or Holland possible. That also applies to the Eastern Territories, of course.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I think it would be better if we referred to the document. That is the right way of doing it and it would save time. It is a draft of a telegram which you prepared for Gauleiter Burckel, Wagner, and others. I shall read from Page 56, of your document book: "The Fuehrer has stated that he can in a short time accomplish the reoccupation of the territories which are at present lost to us, since in continuing the war the western areas are of great importance for armament and war production." What you stated in your testimony is quite different from what you wrote to the Gauleiter.
SPEER: No, my counsel quoted and explained all this yesterday. I should like to see the document again. I do not know whether it is necessary to repeat this whole explanation; it was given yesterday and lasted about 10 minutes. Either my explanation of yesterday is believed or not.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I do not want you to repeat what you said yesterday; if you do not want to answer me, I prefer to pass on to the next question.
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, if you asked him a question which was asked yesterday, he must give the same answer if he wants to give a consistent answer.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: MR. PRESIDENT, I do not think it is necessary to repeat yesterday's question; it would be an absolute waste of time. If he does not want to answer truthfully, then I shall pass on to the next question.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness says: "I did answer the question truthfully yesterday, but if you want me to repeat it again, I will do it, but it will take 10 minutes to do it." That is what he said and it is a perfectly proper answer.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I prefer to pass on to the next question. [Turning to the defendant.] Tell us why you sent this telegram about the destruction of industries to the Gauleiter.
SPEER: It was not sent only to the Gauleiter; it was sent to my representatives as well as to the Gauleiter. The Gauleiter had to be informed because they could on their own initiative have ordered destruction to be carried out, and since they were not subordinate to me but to Bormann I had to send this teletype message which I had drafted to Bormann with the request to forward it to the Gauleiter.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You stated that the adherents of Hitler's "scorched earth" policy were Ley, Goebbels, and Bormann. Now, what about those who are alive today, those who are now sitting in the dock. Did not any of them support Hitler in this policy
SPEER: As far as I recall, none of those now in the deck were in favor of the scorched earth policy. On the contrary, Funk, for example, was one of those who opposed it very strongly.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: This policy was advocated only by people who are now dead?
SPEER: Yes, and probably they killed themselves because they advocated this policy and did other such things.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Your defense counsel has submitted to the Tribunal several letters addressed to Hitler, dated March 1945. Tell us, did Hitler, after receiving these letters, lose confidence in you?
SPEER: I said yesterday already that violent disputes followed these letters, and that Hitler wanted me to go on leave, on permanent leave; that is, in effect he wanted to dismiss me. But I did not want to go.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I have heard this before. But nevertheless, Hitler appointed you on 30 March 1945 to be in charge of the total destruction of all industries.
SPEER: Yes; that is, I was competent for the destruction or nondestruction of industry in Germany until 19 March 1945. Then a Hitler decree which has also been submitted took away from me this power to carry out destruction, but Hitler's decree of 30 March 1945, which I drew up, returned this power to me. The main thing, however, is-I have also submitted the orders which I issued on the strength of this power; they show clearly that I prohibited the carrying-out of destruction, and thereby my purpose was achieved. Not Hitler's decree, but the wording of my executional order was decisive. That order is also among the documents.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: In spite of the fact that Hitler received such letters from you, he did not regard you as a man opposing him?
SPEER: Hitler said in the talk which I- had with him at that time that both for domestic and for foreign political reasons he could not dispense with my services. That was his explanation. I believe that already then his confidence in me was shaken, since in his will he named another as my successor.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And the last question. In April 1945, you wrote, in the Hamburg radio studio, a speech which you intended to deliver if Berlin fell. In this speech, which was not delivered, you advocated the banning of werewolf organization. Tell us, who was in charge of the werewolves?
SPEER: Reichsleiter Bormann was in charge of the werewolves.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And besides Bormann, who?
SPEER: No, just Bormann, as far as I know-I am not quite certain-the werewolf organization was subordinate to Bormann.
MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Naturally. If Bormann were still alive, then you would have said that Himmler was the leader of this organization. I did not expect another answer from you. I have no more questions of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, did you want to ask something which arises out of the cross-examination?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have only a few questions on the cross-examination. Witness, you stated that after air raids deficiencies arising in the concerns were reported by you to the DAF or to Sauckel. That is correct, is it not?
SPEER: No, not quite in this form. I was asked whether I received occasional reports on such conditions. I said "yes," I passed them on to Sauckel or to the DAN because they were the competent authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: What did these reports which were sent to Sauckel contain?
SPEER: As far as I remember I said in the examination that I do not exactly recall receiving such reports. In any case the question was only a theoretical one: What would I have done if I had received such reports? I thought that reports had certainly reached me, but I can no longer recall their specific contents.
DR. SERVATIUS: What was Sauckel to do?
SPEER: Against the air raids Sauckel could not do anything either.
DR. SERVATIUS: If you sent the reports to him it meant that he was to provide help?
SPEER: Yes, or that he, as the competent authority, would have precise information on conditions in his field of work, even if he could not help.
DR. SERVATIUS: His field was the recruiting of manpower.
SPEER: No, also labor conditions.
DR. SERVATIUS: Labor conditions could be improved only through material deliveries, through food deliveries, and so forth.
SPEER: Of course, but in the last analysis the Plenipotentiary General for the Allocation of Labor was responsible for working conditions. That is obvious from the decree which Goering signed. Naturally it was also the concern of other authorities to create good working conditions; that is quite clear.
DR. SERVATIUS: But, after all, it was not a question of issuing a decree, but of giving practical help.
SPEER: Practical help after air raids was not given by the central agency; that was impossible since transportation and telephone connections were generally cut. It was given by the local authorities.
DR. SERVATIUS: In other words, Sauckel could not do anything?