“I was under Dr. May and I was often successful in getting him

to come to the camp to see the terrible conditions and listen to

the complaints, but it was not possible for him to get medical

aid from the Medical Department of the Armed Forces or Krupp’s,

or to get better conditions, treatment, or food. I was a witness

during a conversation with some Russian women who told me

personally that they were employed in Krupp’s factory and that

they were beaten daily in the most bestial manner. The food

consisted of watery soup which was dirty and inedible and its

terrible smell could be perceived from a distance. The clothing

was ragged and torn and on their feet they had rags and wooden

shoes. Their treatment, as far as I could make out, was the same

as that of the prisoners of war. Beating was the order of the

day. The conditions lasted for years, from the very beginning

until the day the American troops entered. The people lived in

great anxiety and it was dangerous for them to describe to

anyone anywhere the conditions which reigned in their camps. The

directions were such that they could have been murdered by any

one of the guards, the SS, or Gestapo if they noticed it. It was

possible for me as a doctor to talk to these people; they

trusted me and knew that I was a Pole and would never betray

them to anyone.

“Signed: Dr. Apolinary Gotowicki.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Now you have explained that some of these

conditions were due, in your judgment, to the fact that bombing took

place and the billets of the prisoners and workers were destroyed.

SPEER: That is true, but I should like to point out that the conditions

described in this affidavit cannot be considered as general; apart from

that, I do not believe that this description is correct, but I cannot

speak about these things since you will not expect me to be intimately

acquainted with what happened in the camps of the firm of Krupp.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, in the first place, was it considered proper

by you to billet forced workers and prisoners of war so close to

military targets as these prisoners were?

SPEER: I would rather not tell you here things which every German has at

heart. No military targets were attacked, and the camps, therefore,

could not be near military targets.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: You would not consider the Krupp plants proper

targets?

SPEER: The camps were not in the Krupp works, they were near the city of

Essen. On principle, we did not construct camps near the works which we

expected would be bombed; and we did not want the camps to be destroyed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Did you notice that one of the photographs in

evidence shows the camp directly against the works?

SPEER: May I see it again, please?

[_A photograph was shown to the defendant._]

Some large factory is recognizable in the background of this photograph,

but that does not affect my statement that in almost all cases we

constructed the camps outside the cities. I do not know why this

particular instance is different, and I cannot even say whether this is

a camp or just a hut for changing clothes, or anything which had to be

near the camp. I still believe that these cabinets were cabinets for

clothes, and this is one of the many huts which were necessary so that

the workers could change clothes before and after their work. Any expert

in Germany can tell you that these are wardrobes and not some special

cabinets, because they are mass-produced articles; this is also

confirmed by the fact that there are air vents at the top, for every

wardrobe has these ventilation holes at the top and bottom.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: As production Minister, you were vitally interested

in reducing the sickness rate among workers, were you not?

SPEER: I was interested in a high output of work, that is obvious; and

in addition, in special cases...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, special cases—part of production is in all

cases, is it not, dependent upon the sickness rate of your labor force,

and is it not a fact—as a man engaged in production you will know

this—that the two greatest difficulties in manpower and production are

sickness and rapid turnover, and that those factors reduce production?

SPEER: These two factors were disturbing for us, but not as extensively

as your words might suggest. Cases of sickness made up a very small

percentage which in my opinion was normal. However, propaganda pamphlets

dropped from aircraft were telling the workers to feign illness, and

detailed instructions were given to them on how to do it. And to prevent

that, the authorities concerned introduced certain measures, which I

considered proper.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: What were those measures?

SPEER: I cannot tell you in detail, because I myself did not institute

these penalties, nor did I have the power to do so; but as far as I

know, they were ordered by the Plenipotentiary General for the

Allocation of Labor in collaboration with the Police or State

authorities; but the jurisdiction in this connection was with the

authorities responsible for legal action.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Now, if you did not know what they were, how can

you tell us that you approved of them? We always get to this blank wall

that nobody knew what was being done. You knew that they were at least

penalties of great severity, did you not?

SPEER: When I say that I approved I am only expressing my wish not to

dodge my responsibility in this respect. But you must understand that a

minister of production, particularly in view of the air attacks, had a

tremendous task before him and that I could only take care of matters

outside my own field if some particularly important factor forced me to

do so. Otherwise, I was glad if I could finish my own work and, after

all, my task was by no means a small one.

I think that if during the German air attacks on England you had asked

the British Minister of Production whether he shared the worries of the

Minister of Labor and whether he was dealing with them, then he would

with justification have told you that he had something else to do at

that time, that he had to keep up his production and that he expected

the Minister of Labor to manage affairs in his sector; and no one would

have raised a direct accusation against the British Minister of

Production on that account.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, production was your enterprise, and do you

mean to tell me that you did not have any records or reports on the

condition of the manpower which was engaged in production, which would

tell you if there was anything wrong in the sick rate or anything wrong

in the general conditions of the labor?

SPEER: What I knew is contained in the reports of the Central Planning

Board; there you will get a picture of what I was told. Although there

were many other meetings I cannot tell you in detail what I knew,

because these were things outside my sphere of activity. Naturally, it

is a matter of course that anyone closely concerned with the affairs of

State will also hear of matters not immediately connected with his own

sphere, and of unsatisfactory conditions existing in other sectors; but

one is not obliged to deal with these conditions and later on one will

not remember them in detail. You cannot expect that of me. But if you

have any particular passage, I shall be glad to give you information on

it.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: All right; assume that these conditions had been

called to your attention and that they existed. With whom would you have

taken it up to have them corrected? What officer of the Government?

SPEER: Normally, a minister would send a document to the Government

authorities responsible for such conditions. I must claim for myself

that when I heard of such deficiencies I tried to remedy them by

establishing direct contact with the authority responsible, in some

cases the German Labor Front, where I had a liaison officer, or in other

cases my letter was transmitted to Sauckel through my office of manpower

deployment. My practice in this respect was that if I did not receive a

return report I considered the matter settled; for I could not then

again pursue those things and make further inquiries whether they had

been dealt with or not.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: With Krupp’s, then, you would not have taken it up?

You think they had no responsibility for these conditions?

SPEER: During visits to Krupp’s discussions certainly took place on the

conditions which generally existed for workers after air attacks; this

was a source of great worry for us, particularly with regard to Krupp. I

knew this well, but the reports from Krupp were not different from—I

cannot remember ever being told that foreign workers or prisoners of war

were in a particularly bad position. Temporarily they all lived under

very primitive conditions; German workers lived in cellars during those

days, and six or eight people were often quartered in a small basement

room.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your statement some time ago that you had a certain

responsibility as a Minister of the Government for the conditions—I

should like to have you explain what responsibility you referred to when

you say you assume a responsibility as a member of the Government.

SPEER: Do you mean the declaration I made yesterday that I...

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Your common responsibility, what do you mean by

your common responsibility along with others?

SPEER: Oh, yes. In my opinion, a state functionary has two types of

responsibility. One is the responsibility for his own sector and for

that, of course, he is fully responsible. But above that I think that in

decisive matters there is, and must be, among the leaders a common

responsibility, for who is to bear responsibility for developments, if

not the close associates of the head of State?

This common responsibility, however, can only be applied to fundamental

matters, it cannot be applied to details connected with other ministries

or other responsible departments, for otherwise the entire discipline in

the life of the State would be quite confused, and no one would ever

know who is individually responsible in a particular sphere. This

individual responsibility in one’s own sphere must, at all events, be

kept clear and distinct.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Well, your point is, I take it, that you as a

member of the Government and a leader in this period of time acknowledge

a responsibility for its large policies, but not for all the details

that occurred in their execution. Is that a fair statement of your

position?

SPEER: Yes, indeed.

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I think that concludes the cross-examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine?

STATE COUNSELLOR OF JUSTICE M. Y. RAGINSKY (Assistant Prosecutor for the

U.S.S.R.): Defendant Speer, when you told your biography to the Tribunal

and answered the questions of Justice Jackson, I think you omitted some

substantial matters. I would like to ask you a few questions.

SPEER: I left out such points as I did not wish to contest, since they

are, at any rate, contained here in the documents; I would have a

tremendous task if I were to go into all these points in detail.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I would like to recall these points, and I

would like to ask you to answer them briefly.

Did I understand you correctly that, in addition to your ministerial

position, you were also the personal architect of Hitler after the death

of Professor Todt? Did you hold this position?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you Inspector General of Roads?

SPEER: Only after Dr. Todt’s death.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, of course. Were you Inspector General of

Waterpower and Power Plants?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Plenipotentiary for Building in the Central

Administration of the Four Year Plan?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Director of the Organization Todt?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You were associated with the Technological

Office of the National Socialist Party? You were the leader of the Union

of National Socialist Technicians?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And in addition to these posts, did you have

any other leading positions?

SPEER: Oh, I had 10 or 12 positions. I cannot give you a list of them

all now.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you not one of the leaders of the Reich

Chamber of Culture?

SPEER: No, no, that is not correct. I cannot tell you for certain, but I

think I was a senator there or something like that.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Were you a member of the presidency of the

academy of culture? Were you a member of the presidency of the Academy

of Arts?

SPEER: Yes, that also.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I shall not mention the other posts you have

held, in order to shorten the cross-examination. Do you remember your

statements during the interrogation by Colonel Rosenblith on 14 November

1945?

SPEER: No, not in detail.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I will remind you of one question, and will you

tell me whether or not your answer was put down correctly. It was the

question whether you acknowledged that in his book _Mein Kampf_ Hitler

stated bluntly his aggressive plans for the countries of the East and

West and, in particular, for the Soviet Union. You answered, “Yes, I

acknowledge it.” Do you remember that?

SPEER: Yes, that is perfectly possible.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And do you confirm that now?

SPEER: No.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You do not confirm that now?

SPEER: I shall have to tell you that at the time I was ashamed to say

that I had not read the whole of Mein Kampf. I thought that would sound

rather absurd.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right, we shall not waste time. You were

ashamed to admit that, or are you ashamed now? Let us go on to another

question.

SPEER: Yes, I cheated at that time.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You cheated at that time; maybe you are

cheating now?

SPEER: No.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: It does not matter. You worked on the staff of

Hess, did you not?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You worked with Ley?

SPEER: Yes, in the Labor Front.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, the German Labor Front. You had a high

rank in the Nazi Party, as you stated here today; you said that today in

Court, did you not?

SPEER: No, it was not a high rank; it did not in any way correspond to

the position which I occupied in the State.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You had better listen to my questions and then

answer them. I repeat; you were collaborating with Hess, and you worked

with Ley in the Labor Front. You were one of the leaders of the

technicians in the Nazi Party. We will not discuss whether it was a very

high rank or not, but you did have a rank in the Nazi Party.

Yesterday, in Court, you said that you were one of Hitler’s close

friends. You now want to say that so far as the plans and intentions of

Hitler were concerned, you only learned about them from the book _Mein

Kampf_?

SPEER: I can say a few words in this connection. I was in close contact

with Hitler, and I heard his personal views; these views of his did not

allow the conclusion that he had any plans of the sort which have

appeared in the documents here, and I was particularly relieved in 1939,

when the Nonaggression Pact with Russia was signed. After all, your

diplomats too must have read _Mein Kampf_; nevertheless, they signed the

Nonaggression Pact. And they were certainly more intelligent than I

am—I mean in political matters.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I will not now examine who read _Mein Kampf_

and who did not; that is irrelevant and does not interest the Tribunal.

So you contend that you did not know anything about Hitler’s plans?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right, please tell us this. As Chief of the

Main Office of Technology of the Nazi Party, what were your tasks?

SPEER: In the Party?

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You probably know it better than I, since you

were the head of that office.

SPEER: I only took over that task or that office in 1942; and in 1942,

during the war, this Main Office of Technology of the NSDAP had no task

to perform.

I took over the officials who were in that department into my Ministry,

and there they worked as State functionaries. Detailed information on

this is available in the written testimony of the witness Saur, and that

is contained in my document book.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: What is contained in the testimony of the

witness Saur?

SPEER: The document book also contains a decree which I issued at the

end of 1942, and in which I ordered the transfer of these tasks to the

State.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: But you did not answer my question. In order to

clarify this, I will read what Saur said on this point, and you will

please state whether it is correct or not.

On the tasks of the Main Office of Technology of the Party, Saur said:

“The task of the Main Office of Technology of the Party was the

unified direction of technical organizations of German engineers

in scientific, professional, and political respects.”

It was a political organization, was it not?

SPEER: No, it was chiefly a technical organization.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: A technical organization which occupied itself

with political questions.

In the document book which has been presented and partly quoted by your

defense counsel there are indications of the tasks of the Main Office of

Technology. From one document it is obvious that the engineers were to

be taught the National Socialist ideology, and that this organization

was also a political and not only a technical one.

SPEER: Where does it say so? May I have the document?

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Of course, the document book of the Defense. I

shall hand it to you, if you like to have it. You will see there the

structure of the Kreisleitung.

SPEER: The translation said it was from my document book, but it is not

from my document book. It is from the organizational handbook of the

NSDAP, and...

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: That is the structure of the NSDAP. That is

Document 1893-PS, which has been presented by your defense counsel.

SPEER: Yes, but in my document book it says that the Main Office of

Technology in the NSDAP did not have a political task. This is an

extract from the organizational handbook of the NSDAP, and I would not

have included it in my document book if I had not had the precise

impression that it demonstrates particularly well that, in contrast to

all other agencies, the Main Office of Technology had a nonpolitical

task within the Party.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Was the National Socialist Union of German

Technicians a political organization?

SPEER: By no means.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: By no means? Tell me, please, did not the

leaders of this Union have to be members of the Nazi Party?

SPEER: They did not have to be members, as far I know. I never paid any

attention to whether they were members or not.

THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?

[_A recess was taken._]

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You were one of the leaders of the Central

Planning Board. Was the search for new sources of raw materials part of

your program?

SPEER: I do not understand the meaning of the question.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Was the search for new sources of raw materials

part of the program of the Central Planning Board?

SPEER: No, not actually.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right. I shall read to you from your

document book. Will you listen, please? Otherwise, we shall lose too

much time with you. This is the order dated 22 April 1942 and signed by

Göring; it is in your document book, in Volume I, Page 14 of the Russian

text, and Page 17 of the English text, Exhibit Speer-7. It states:

“With a view to assuring priority of armaments as ordered by the

Führer, and to embrace all the demands which are thereby made on

the total economy during the war, and in order to bring about an

adjustment between a secure food supply and the raw material and

manufacturing facilities in the economy, I order:

“In connection with the Four Year Plan a Central Planning Board

shall be organized.”

Further on it mentions who the members of the Central Planning Board

were. In the third part the tasks of the Central Planning Board are

enumerated. I shall read that into the record:

“Point C: The distribution of existing raw materials, especially

iron and metals, among the places requiring them.

“Point B: The decision as to the creation of new plants for

production of raw materials, or enlargement of the existing

plants.”

This is written in your document book.

SPEER: Well, there is a difference. I was told “sources of raw

materials”; I understand “sources of raw materials” to mean ore, for

example, or coal beds. What this paragraph says is the “creation of new

means of producing raw materials,” that means the building of a factory

for steel production, for instance, or an aluminum factory.

I myself said that expanding the supply of raw materials for industry

was important, and that I took over this task.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes. Of course, it is rather difficult to deny

it, since it is written here in the document.

SPEER: No, it is only that these are technical expressions, and it may

be that since they were retranslated into German they were rendered

falsely. The meaning of the paragraph is actually quite clear, and every

expert can confirm it. It is the same activity...

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I understand the sense. Tell us, when you

enumerated the members of the Central Planning Board, was it just

accidental that you did not name Funk as a member of that board?

SPEER: No. Actually, Funk worked hardly at all in the Planning Board,

and therefore I did not list him. He became a member officially only in

September 1943, but even after that time he took part in only one or two

meetings, so that his activity was very slight.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I did not ask you about his activity; I am

asking you whether Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board.

SPEER: Yes, from September 1943.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And it was purely through accident that you did

not name him? Or did you have any particular purpose in not naming him?

SPEER: I actually named only the three members who were on the Central

Planning Board from the very beginning, since its foundation, because I

was speaking only of the foundation of the board. That explains the

error. I did not want to occupy the Court’s time with something which

was generally known.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right. You have maintained here that you

were concerned only with peaceful construction, and that, as far as the

appointment to the post of Minister for armaments was concerned, you

accepted it without any particular desire, and you even had your qualms

about it. Do you still maintain the same view?

SPEER: May I have the question repeated?

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: If you please. You stated here several times,

in replying to the questions of your defense counsel, that you accepted

the post of Minister for armaments without any special desire, and that

you had your qualms about it; and you did not particularly care to

accept it. Do you still maintain that now?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I shall remind you of what you said to the

representatives of industry in the Rhine-Westphalia district. Do you

remember what you said to them? I shall quote one paragraph from your

speech. You said:

“I did not hesitate long in the spring of 1942, and soon one

demand of the Führer after another was taken up by us to be

carried out and was laid down in program form—programs the

realization of which had been pronounced impracticable or been

made dependent on impossible conditions by the agencies formerly

dealing with them.” (Document Number Speer-2)

Did you say that?

SPEER: Yes. But this has nothing to do with your statement. The demands

which are meant here are demands for an increase in military armaments.

Those are the demands I accepted. But in addition it was a matter of

course that I immediately accepted the appointment as armament Minister

without any qualms. I have never denied that. I only said that I would

rather be an architect than an armament Minister, and that can probably

be understood.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And now we shall listen to what you said to the

Gauleiter in your speech in Munich:

“I gave up all my activity, including my actual profession,

architecture, to dedicate myself without reservations to the war

task. The Führer expects that of all of us.” (Document 1435-PS)

Is that what you are saying now?

SPEER: Yes. I believe that was the custom in your State too.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I am not asking you about our State. We are now

talking about your State. I am asking you whether you now affirm before

the Tribunal what you then said to the Gauleiter.

SPEER: Yes. I only wanted to explain this to you, because apparently you

do not appreciate why in time of war one should accept the post of

armament Minister. If the need arises that is a matter of course, and I

cannot understand why you do not appreciate that and why you want to

reproach me for it.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I understand you perfectly.

SPEER: Good.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: When you made your speech before the Gauleiter,

you did not, of course, think that you would be held responsible before

the International Military Tribunal for the words which you then spoke.

SPEER: Excuse me; one moment, please. I must say something in answer to

your question: That this is my view, and that I think it quite proper,

is evident from the fact that you quoted it from my document book,

otherwise I would not have included it in my own document book. I hope

you consider me sufficiently intelligent to be capable of setting up my

document book correctly.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: But these documents are also in the possession

of the Prosecution. However, we shall pass on to the next question.

In response to the questions of your defense counsel you testified about

the principles and tasks of your Ministry. In connection with this, I

should like to ask you a few questions. Do you remember the contents of

your article entitled “Increase of Production,” which was published in

_Das Reich_ on 19 April 1942?

You will be given a copy of this article in a second.

Mr. President, I submit this article as Exhibit USSR-479.

[_Turning to the defendant._] I shall remind you briefly what you wrote

about the principles of your Ministry.

“One thing, however, will be necessary, and that is energetic

action, including the most severe punishment, in cases when

offenses are committed against the interests of the State ...

severe prison sentences or death.... The war must be won.”

Did you write this?

SPEER: Yes.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Now, I shall remind you of another article of

yours. You will also be given a copy of it.

SPEER: Just a moment. May I ask you to read the whole paragraph? You

left out a few sentences in the middle.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, yes, I omitted something, but I shall ask

you some questions on that later.

SPEER: But it shows for what offenses prison and death sentences were

provided. That is surely relevant. I believe you should quote the

passage fully, otherwise the context will be lost.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You will give your consents or explanations to

the questions afterward. But meanwhile listen to the questions as I put

them to you. If you want to give your explanation with regard to this,

you are entitled to do so later.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no, General Raginsky, the Tribunal would prefer to

have the comments now.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, if the defendant wishes to give

an explanation with regard to this article, I shall let him do so, of

course.

SPEER: The text which you omitted reads as follows:

“At my suggestion, the Führer ordered that those heads of

concerns and employees, and also those officials and officers,

who attempt to secure material or labor by giving inaccurate

information will receive severe prison sentences or the death

sentences.”

The reasons for this were as follows: When I took over my office, the

demands addressed to the central departments were increased by the

intermediate departments handling the demands. Each of the many

intermediate departments added something of its own, so that the demands

reaching me were quite enormous and incredible, and made planning quite

impossible. For example, because of these additions the demands which I

received for copper in one year amounted to more than the whole world’s

yearly production of copper. And in order to prevent this and to obtain

accurate indications, I issued an order to deter these officials,

officers, heads of concerns, and employees from giving false figures.

In my Gauleiter speech I spoke of this, and I said the result of this

decree would surely be that no one would any longer dare to forward

false information to higher offices, and that was the purpose of the

decree; I said that it would never be necessary to put the decree into

effect, since I did not believe that the heads of concerns, employees,

officials, and officers would in view of such a severe penalty have

enough boldness to continue supplying false indications.

In fact, no penalty was ever imposed, but the result of the decree was

that demands for materials and workers reaching me decreased

considerably.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You maintained that your obligations and duties

as a Minister included only production. Did I understand you correctly?

SPEER: Yes, armaments and war production.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: And the supply of industry with raw materials,

was that not included in your duties?

SPEER: No, that was my task from September 1943 onwards, when I took

over the whole of production. It is true that from then on I was in

charge of the whole of production, from raw materials to the finished

products.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: In the book _Germany at War_ (_Deutschland im

Kampf_), which was published in November 1943—you will be given this

volume now, and I submit this document to the Tribunal as Exhibit Number

USSR-480—it says:

“On the basis of the Führer decree of 2 September 1943 relative

to the concentration of war economy, and of the decree of the

Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich and the

Plenipotentiary of the Four Year Plan for Central Planning of 4

September 1943, Reich Minister Speer will now direct the entire

war economic production in his capacity as Reich Minister for

Armaments and War Production. He alone is competent and

responsible for guiding, directing, and applying the industrial

war economy.”

Is this correct? I ask you to answer briefly, is it correct or not?

SPEER: This is expressed rather unprofessionally, because the term

“industrial war economy” does not quite cover the concept “armament and

war production.” This was not drawn up by an expert, but otherwise it

agrees with what I have testified. I said that war production embraced

the whole of production.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, but after September 1943, you were

responsible not only for war industry but for the whole war economy as

well, and those are two different things.

SPEER: No, exactly that is the mistake. It says here “industrial war

economy,” which means something like production, war economy, or

production, in trade and industry, with that qualification; and when it

says earlier “the entire war economic production,” the person who wrote

this also meant production. But the concept...

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: You mentioned here already that having accepted

the post of Minister in 1942, you inherited a great and heavy task. Tell

us briefly, please, what was the situation with regard to strategic raw

materials, and in particular with regard to alloy metals used in the war

industry?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, General Raginsky, is it necessary for us to go into

details? Is it not obvious that a man who was controlling many millions

of workers had a large task? What is this directed to?

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Mr. President, the question is preparatory; it

leads to another question, and inasmuch as it is connected...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but what is the ultimate object of the

cross-examination? You say it is leading to something else. What is it

leading to?

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: The object is to prove that the Defendant Speer

participated in the economic plundering and looting of occupied

territories.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, then ask him directly about that.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I am just coming to that now.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Do you acknowledge the fact that you

participated in economic plundering of occupied territories?

SPEER: I participated in the economic exploitation of the occupied

countries, yes; but I do not believe the term “plundering” is very

clearly defined. I do not know what is meant by “plundering of an

occupied territory.”

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: To make up the deficit of strategic raw

materials, did you not export alloy metals for the war industry from

Belgium, France, and other occupied territories?

SPEER: Of course, I did not export them myself; but certainly I

participated in some way. I was not responsible for it, but certainly I

urged strongly that we should obtain as much metal from there as

possible.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: I am satisfied with your answer and the

Tribunal will draw its conclusions.

Do you remember Hitler’s decree about the concentration of war economy,

published on 2 September? You will be given a copy of this decree at

once. This document is being submitted as Exhibit Number USSR-482. I do

not intend to read all of this as it will take too much time, but I

would like to read into the record a few paragraphs of this decree,

which begins:

“Taking into consideration the stricter mobilization and uniform

commitment of all economic forces required by the exigencies of

war, I order the following:”

Paragraph 2:

“The powers of the Reich Minister for Economy in the sphere of

raw materials and production in industry and trade are given to

the Reich Minister for armaments and munitions. The Reich

Minister for armaments and munitions, in view of the extended

scope of his tasks, will be known as Reich Minister for

Armaments and War Production.”

Did you see this decree?

SPEER: Yes, I know it.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Will you, in connection with this decree, tell

us briefly and concisely how the functions between you and Funk were

divided?

SPEER: Well, that is shown in the text. I was in charge of all

production, from raw materials to the finished product, and Funk was in

charge of all general economic questions, primarily the questions of

financial transactions, securities, commerce, foreign trade, and so

forth. This, however, is not exhaustive, but just approximate

information.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: That answer satisfies me. In connection with

this decree, did you receive plenipotentiary powers for the regulation

of goods exchange and goods traffic?

SPEER: I do not quite understand what you mean.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: All right. So as not to lose any time, then,

you will be given a document signed by you and Funk, and dated 6

September 1943. This document I present to the Tribunal as Exhibit

Number USSR-483. I shall read the first sentence of the first paragraph:

“Insofar as existing laws establish the authority of the Reich

Minister of Economy in the regulation of goods traffic, this

authority for the period of the war will be exercised by the

Minister for Armaments and War Production.”

In this way your role in the war effort of Germany, your role as head of

the German war economy during the period of the war, was much wider in

scope than that which you have described here to the Tribunal, is that

not so?

SPEER: No, I did not try to picture the situation differently, and I

said that during the war the Minister for armaments held the most

important position of all in the Reich; and that everyone had to work

for him. I do not believe that I could have given a more comprehensive

description of my task. This matter of goods traffic is of quite

subordinate significance. I cannot even say what is meant here by “goods

traffic.” It is a technical term which I do not quite understand.

MR. COUNSELLOR RAGINSKY: Yes, but this document is signed by you, and

now you do not know exactly what is meant by it. You signed it together

with Funk?

SPEER: Of course.

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:

“Insofar 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

cross-examination 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. Flächsner?

DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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, if 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?

SPEER: 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 Führer, to assign these workers so that the

orders issued to me by the Führer 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 Führer 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 all of it into the record, but I will read just a

few basic points.

The Führer’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 Bürckel,

Wagner, and others.

I shall read from Page 56, of your document book:

“The Führer 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 dock 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

non-destruction 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 DAF 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 Göring 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?

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 DAF 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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 wanted 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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. Flächsner, 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. FLÄCHSNER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you may as well finish now, then. However, Dr.

Flächsner, 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. Flächsner.

DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: No, in the English text, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the document?

DR. FLÄCHSNER: It is an execution order for the Führer decree of 19

March 1945.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well.

DR. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: 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. FLÄCHSNER: That is all.

Mr. President, yesterday the defendant referred to excerpts of the

Führer 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._]

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-FIRST DAY

Saturday, 22 June 1946

_Morning Session_

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Von Lüdinghausen, the Tribunal sees that you have a

supplementary request for an additional witness, Ambassador

François-Poncet; is that so? And for some additional documents?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Yes, Mr. President. May I, with reference to the

application for M. François-Poncet, make the following remarks. The

Ambassador, François-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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I first of all 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: No, no, in the course of the examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes—then you propose to call the defendant?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 will speak the pure truth—and will

withhold and add nothing.

[_The defendant repeated the oath._]

THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 Württemberg. 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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

Tübingen and Berlin and there passed the two state law examinations.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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

Württemberg 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 so-called 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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. Gürtner, when I had been removed from my office and interned

in my apartment because of illegal interventions on the part of

Reich Bishop Ludwig Müller 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: In this connection I should like to refer to and

read a short sentence from an affidavit by the former Ambassador Dr.

Curt Prüfer. This document is Number Neurath-4 in my document book.

Ambassador Prüfer 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: It is Page 9 of the German.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and our Page 21?

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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 Führer, and this power was transferred to the Deputy of

the Führer, 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 LÜDINGHAUSEN: That was the affidavit of the former Ambassador

Dr. Curt Prüfer.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know that. I wanted to know which answer it was.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: 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.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Number 18; it is the answer to Question 18.

May I also draw your attention to an affidavit by Baroness Ritter of

Munich. Baroness Ritter is a distant relative of the defendant. She is

the widow of the former Bavarian Ambassador to the Holy See. She has

known Von Neurath for many years and is very familiar with his way of

thinking.

This is Number Neurath-3 in my Document Book 1, and I should like to

quote from Page 3, just one short passage:

“The same tolerant attitude which he had toward Christian

denominations he also had toward the Jewish question. Therefore

he rejected Hitler’s racial policy as a matter of principle. In

practice he also succeeded in preventing any elimination of Jews

under his jurisdiction until the year 1937.

“Furthermore, he helped all persons who were close to him

professionally or personally, and who had been affected by the

legislation concerning Jews, insofar as he was able, in order to

protect them from financial and other disadvantages.”

Herr Von Neurath, what was your attitude toward Hitler’s anti-Jewish

tendencies and measures?

VON NEURATH: In them I saw an anti-Semitism which was not altogether

rare in the German people, but had had no practical effects. I protested

to Hitler against all excesses of which I knew, and not simply for

foreign political reasons. I begged him, in particular, to restrain

Goebbels and Himmler.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: In connection with this matter I should like to

interpose a question. What did you know about the activities and

excesses committed by the Gestapo, the SA, and the SS?

In this connection I should like to put to you the testimony of the

witness Gisevius, who was examined here some time ago. He said:

“Beyond that, I submitted to one of the closest associates of

the Foreign Minister at that time,”—that was you—“Ambassador

Von Bülow-Schwante, the Chief of Protocol, as much material as I

possibly could and, according to the information which

Bülow-Schwante gave me, he submitted that material repeatedly.”

This is material supposed to refer to excesses, particularly against

foreigners, of course.

VON NEURATH: The statement by this witness Gisevius that my Chief of

Protocol would generally have had to inform me about the activities of

the Gestapo is a thoroughly wrong conclusion. Officially, through

complaints from ambassadors and ministers, I heard of brawls and also of

arrests by the Police and the SA, but I knew nothing about the general

official institutions of the Gestapo and its activities.

In every case which became known to me I demanded, above all, that the

Minister of the Interior, the Chief of the Police, and the Gestapo give

me an explanation and punish the persons guilty.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: What did you know or what did you learn about

concentration camps? When did you first hear of this institution at all,

and when and from whom did you hear of the conditions which prevailed in

these camps?

VON NEURATH: The institution of the so-called concentration camps was

known to me from the Boer War. The existence of such camps in Germany

became known to me in 1934 or 1935 when two officials of my office,

among them the Chief of Protocol mentioned by Herr Gisevius, were

suddenly arrested. When I investigated their whereabouts, I discovered

that they had been removed to a so-called concentration camp. I sent for

Himmler and Heydrich and remonstrated with them, which resulted in a

very heated argument. I complained at once to Hitler, and these two

officials were released. I then asked them how they had been treated,

and both of them agreed in saying that, apart from the lack of freedom,

the treatment had not been bad.

The concentration camp to which they had been taken was the camp at

Oranienburg. Later on I learned of the existence of a camp at Dachau,

and in 1939 I also heard of Buchenwald, because the Czech students who

had been arrested by Himmler were taken there.

The extent of the concentration camps as it has become known here, and

in particular the treatment of the prisoners and the existence of the

extermination camps, are things which I learned about for the first time

here in Nuremberg.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: By whom and when were you appointed Reich Foreign

Minister, and how did that appointment come about?

VON NEURATH: I was appointed Foreign Minister on 2 June 1932 by Reich

President Von Hindenburg. Already in 1929, after Stresemann’s death,

Hindenburg had wanted to appoint me Foreign Minister. At that time I

refused, because in view of the party conditions existing in the

Reichstag in those days I saw no possibility for a stable foreign

policy. I was not a member of any of the 30 or so parties, so that I

would not have been able to have found any kind of support in the

Reichstag of those days.

Hindenburg, however, obtained my promise that I would answer his call if

the fatherland should find itself in an emergency.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: In this connection may I quote the telegram in

which the Foreign Office informed Herr Von Neurath of the fact that the

Reich President desired that he should take a leading position in the

Government at this time. This is a copy of the telegram which was

transmitted to him by telephone, Number 6 in my document book:

“For the Ambassador personally, to be deciphered by himself.

“Berlin, 31 May 1932.”

It was addressed to London.

“The Reich President requests you, in view of your former

promise, to take over the Foreign Ministry in the presidential

cabinet now being formed, which will be made up of right-wing

personalities free from political party allegiance and will be

supported not so much by the Reichstag as by the authority of

the Reich President. The Reich President addresses an urgent

appeal to you not to refuse your services to the fatherland in

this difficult hour. Should you not be able to give an

affirmative answer immediately I ask you to return at once.”

It is signed by Bülow, who was at that time the State Secretary of the

Foreign Office.

I also draw your attention to a copy of the letter from the chief of the

Political Affairs Department of the Foreign Office about Neurath’s

appointment to the post of Reich Foreign Minister, a letter which had

been written to a friend of his, Ambassador Rümelin, at the time. The

writer of this letter, Ministerial Director Dr. Köpke, will confirm the

correctness of the letter, in his examination before this Tribunal, that

is to say, the fact that this is the carbon copy of the original

addressed to Ambassador Rümelin.

I believe, therefore, that at this moment I need not read the document.

The document is Number Neurath-8 in my document book.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you light-heartedly decide to answer

Von Hindenburg’s call and take over that difficult post, doubly

difficult as it was in those days?

VON NEURATH: No, not at all. I was not the least bit keen on taking over

the post of Foreign Minister at that time. I liked my post as Ambassador

in London, enjoyed good relations there with the Government and the

Royal Family, and I was hoping, therefore, that I could continue to be

of service to both countries, Great Britain and Germany. I could not

simply overlook Hindenburg’s appeal, but even then I did not decide

until after I had had a lengthy personal discussion with him in which I

stated my own aims and ideas regarding German foreign policy and in

which I assured myself of his support of a peaceful development and the

means of attaining equality for Germany, the strengthening of her

position in the council of nations and the regaining of sovereignty over

German national territory.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I in this connection refer to the affidavit of

former Ambassador Prüfer, which I have already cited and which is Number

Neurath-4 in my document book. I should like to quote from this

document, Paragraph 7, which refers to the appointment of the defendant

by Hindenburg. In my German text this is Page 27.

“In the circles of the higher officials of the Foreign Office it

was a well-known fact that when Hindenburg appointed Hitler

Reich Chancellor he practically attached the condition that

Neurath should remain in office as Foreign Minister. Baron

Neurath in no way pushed himself into this office when he

assumed it in 1932. On the contrary, as early as 1929, when

Hindenburg had asked him to accept the post as Minister, he had

declined on the grounds that, not being a member of a party and

thus being without party support, he could not consider himself

suited to take over a Ministry in a State ruled according to the

parliamentary principle. It was not until 1932, when Reich

President Von Hindenburg, whom he especially revered, formed his

first so-called Presidential Cabinet that Neurath dropped his

misgivings and entered this Cabinet as Foreign Minister.”

What was your judgment of the internal situation at the time?

VON NEURATH: The development of party relations in 1932 had come to such

a head that I was of the opinion that there were only two possibilities:

Either there would have to be some participation of the National

Socialist Party, which had grown strong in numbers, in the Government;

or, should this demand be turned down, there would be civil war.

The details regarding the formation of the Government in 1933 and

Hitler’s coming to power have been thoroughly described by the Defendant

Von Papen.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: What was your own judgment of, and your attitude

toward Hitler, toward National Socialism in general and National

Socialist ideas and, in particular, toward the Party?

VON NEURATH: I did not know Hitler personally. I despised the methods of

the Party during its struggle for power in the State; its ideas were not

known to me in detail. Some of them, particularly in the socialist

sphere, seemed good to me; others I considered revolutionary phenomena

which would be gradually worn away in the manner I had observed during

the German revolution in 1918, and later during the Fascist revolution

in Italy as well. On the whole, however, I was not in sympathy with

them; in any case, in those days I considered that a decisive role

played by Hitler and the National Socialist Party in German politics, or

Hitler’s solo leadership of German politics, was wrong and not in the

interest of Germany, especially not in the interest of German foreign

policy.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: May I in this connection quote another passage

from the afore-mentioned affidavit of Ambassador Prüfer, Number

Neurath-4 in my document book on Page 28. It is interesting insofar as

Prüfer was an official in the defendant’s Ministry:

“Baron von Neurath was not a National Socialist. By reason of

his origin and tradition he was decidedly opposed to the

National Socialist doctrine, insofar as it contained radical and

violent principles. This aversion, which he did not attempt to

conceal, was particularly directed toward excesses by branches

of the Party against people with different views, especially

against the Jews and persons of partly Jewish ancestry; beyond

that it was directed against the general interference of the

National Socialist Party in every vital expression of the German

people and State; in other words, against the claim to

totalitarianism, the Führer Principle, in short, against

dictatorship. During the years 1936 to 1938, when in my capacity

as head of the budget and personnel section I saw him very

frequently, Freiherr von Neurath told me, and others in my

presence, in unmistakable terms how much the increasingly

extreme tendency in German internal and foreign policy filled

him with anxiety and disgust.”

Mr. President, may I also ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of

the questionnaire of Count Schwerin von Krosigk, the former Reich

Minister of Finance, which is Number Neurath-25 in my document book.

Now, proceeding to your foreign political ideas, thoughts, and

principles, what was your attitude toward the Treaty of Versailles and

the League of Nations?

VON NEURATH: It is in the senseless and impossible provisions of the

Versailles Treaty, by which the economic system of the entire world was

brought into a state of disorder, that the roots of National Socialism

and with it the causes of the second World War are to be found. By

combining this Treaty with the League of Nations and by making the

League of Nations to a certain extent the guardian of the provisions of

this Treaty, its original purpose, namely, of creating understanding

among the nations and preserving the peace, became illusory. To be sure,

the statute allowed for the possibility of revision. But the League of

Nations Assembly made no use of this possibility. After the United

States had withdrawn from participation, and Russia, and later Japan

also, stood outside this so-called League of Nations, it consisted in

the large majority only of a collection of interested parties desiring

to maintain the status quo, which had been created precisely by the

Treaty of Versailles. Instead of removing the tensions which appeared

again and again in the course of time, it was the aim of this assembly

not to alter the existing state of affairs at all. That a great and

honor-loving nation, discriminated against as it was by the Versailles

Treaty, could not stand for this for any length of time was something

which any farsighted statesman could recognize. And it was not only in

Germany that it was pointed out again and again that this must lead to

an evil end; but in Geneva, the playground of eloquent and vain

politicians, this fell upon deaf ears.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: It is undeniably a historic fact that German

foreign policy under all governments preceding Hitler’s had aimed at

bringing about a change in the Treaty of Versailles, though exclusively

by peaceful means. Was this policy also that of Hindenburg, or would

Hindenburg perhaps have been disposed to choose another solution, a

solution by violence and war?

VON NEURATH: No, in no case; not even if Germany had had the military

means for that purpose. He told me again and again that a new war would

have to be avoided at all costs.

DR. VON LÜDINGHAUSEN: Mr. President, may I draw your attention to, and

ask you to take judicial notice of, an extract from a speech made by

Count Bernstorff, who was Germany’s representative in the League of

Nations, on 25 September 1928. It is Number Neurath-34 of my Document