THE PRESIDENT: Had you finished, Sir David ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, I had finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Did any of the other prosecutors wish to cross-examine ?
(No response)
Dr. Kubuschok ? BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. In the cross-examination yesterday it was pointed out to you that in your report to Hitler of the 27th of July, 1935 -- British document book 11-A, page 79 -- you point out that, according to legal ascertainment, leading Reich German personalities had a part in the violent methods in Austria in July of 1934. In this connection you mentioned the name Habicht. I should like to receive some information about the personality of Habicht. Was Habicht a Reich German ?
A. Habicht was a Reich German and had his headquarters in Munich. He was Provincial Inspector, Landesinspekteur, of all the National Socialist Party in Austria. That means the following: the Reichsparteileitung, the head of the Party, the Austrian Party was directed by a Landesleiter, or by a Landesinspekteur, who was especially appointed for this purpose. This was Habicht. Since this man had charge of the whole Austrian party, his position in the Party was, of course, called a leading position. One could not call him a liaison officer, but a leading Reich German personality.
Q. In corss-examination yesterday various letters were submitted to you, which you wrote to Hitler between the 4th and the 17th of July 1934. These letters should be gone into more closely. What was the purpose of the letters?
A. I am glad to have an opportunity to go into this correspondence once more. One must consider the situation which existed at that time: Bose shot three co-workers arrested; great excitement; every one who was in any way in opposition was under suspicion of being connected with this SA revolt.
It was similar to the situation after the 20th of July 1944. the Bose case, as well as the other cases. I demanded that in my first letter of the 4th of July. I also demanded this rehabilitation in further letters that we were not in any connection with the SA conspirators.
Q. In the letters you assure Hitler of your loyalty. Is this not astonishing after the events of the 30th of June ?
A. It may seem astonishing to an outsider, but not to a person who knew the almost hysterical mood of those days, because at that time everyone who had been in any opposition at all, or who had criticized the system, was branded as a co-conspirator. For that reason, I thought it advisable to establish, by means of such a letter, that I and the Vice-Chancellery
Q. The representative of the prosecution reads in the letters only the wish for the rehabilitation of your own person. What do you have to say about this ?
A. I asked the Tribunal to consider these letters. In them it can be seen that I repeatedly pointed out that my co-workers also had to be absolutely rehabilitated. of my officials is also my own honor, and I repeatedly demanded that the Bose case be cleared up.
Q. What did you believe to be able to achieve through the legal proceeding which you suggested ?
A. Legal proceedings would have had two effects: In the first place, non-participation in the putsch would have been established, and that would necessarily have shown that the arrest of my co-workers and the killing of Bose had been an arbitrary act, an act for which those responsible were to be punished .
Q In a letter of the 14th of July, you welcomed Hitler's speech of justification before the Reichstag on the 13th of July. What comment do you have to make on this?
A I may ask you to look at the text of this letter. I welcomed the expression of the intended second revolution but by no means a recognition of the act of violence carried out against persons outside the circle of the revolution and, however, the following is to be considered. The events of the 30th of June were divided into two parts. In the first place, Hitler himself had turned against the revolting SA; that such a revolt was actually planned seemed incredible to all of us. The rumors of a second revolution had been current for weeks in the country. In Marburg I had already referred to them. The revolt of the SA leaders, who represented in effect a power, could be considered a danger to the State and the executions had been directed against SA leaders who were known to be particularly radical and whose names were connected with the excesses of 1933. The second part of the action had been directed against persons outside of this circle. Slowly the news of the individual cases leaked out. The justification for taking steps against these persons was in part explained by saying that those affected had some sort of connection with SA leaders and that in part they had offered resistance. That had to be cleared up, for here no emergency law could be referred to but an orderly procedure could not be deviated from in this case, hence, my letter to Hitler of the 22th of July, in which I asked him not to deviate from the orderly legal procedure and I warned him against identifying himself with these events and I demanded from him -- referring to the Bose case -- the rehabilitation of the legal proceedings.
THE PRESIDENT: We have got the letters, Dr. Kubuschok.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, the purpose of this questioning is to clear up the situation and to explain the form of the letters but I believe the defendant has said enough and we can go on to another question now. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK: complimentary closing, also deviates from the other letters in the rest of its form. How do you explain this?
my efforts to achieve legal proceedings to clear up the matter. I had not even received my files back. For that reason, I gave up further efforts and there was no longer any reason to announce my resignation publicly.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: You meant to take it back. Now, I come back to a document which the English prosecution referred to today. It is 2248-PS, in the English document book, 11-A, page 99. I believe there are difficulties in the translation here which make it difficult to understand. I will read the sentence in question once more and ask the defendant to explain this sentence. I will quote on page 99 of the English text, the second paragraph from the top.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, we have had a very long explanation already.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, the explanation suffered from the fact that the defendant did not understand the translation correctly or that the English prosecution did not understand the defendant. The form of the German text is not clear. The defendant will be able to explain it very easily.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go on. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q "The way in which Germany deals with politico-religious difficulties, the clever hand which eliminates political Catholicism without touching the Christian foundation of Germany, will not only have a decisive effect on England," etc. Please explain the sense of this sentence which I have just read.
A I wanted to say to Hitler "You must with a clever hand eliminate political Catholicism but the religious foundation must under no circumstances be touched."
THE PRESIDENT: No question of translation arises. The passage was read to us verbatim as it is before us and it was read by Sir David MaxwellFyfe to the defendant and the defendant has given the same answer over and over again in answer to Sir David.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I point out the following: The whole sentence was in the future tense, the whole sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: It was read to us just now by the interpreter verbatim in the words which are before us in the book and the words which were put by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to the defendant. There is no question of difference of tense at all.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, there is a special language difficulty. With us, in the first part, the first two verbs use the present tense. Later, in German the present is to be understood as meaning the future also. In the opinion of the British prosecution, the first two verbs "deals" and "eliminates" are to be considered past tense.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a matter of verbal argument of the words of the document.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: One last question to the witness. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q The Cardinal Innitzer's talk to Hitler in Vienna was discussed. On what occasion did you arrange this meeting of Hitler with Cardinal Innitzer? Reich, Hitler had joined a Catholic country to Germany and the problem which was to be solved was to win this country internally as well. That was possible only if Hitler recognized the religious basis, recognized what rights Catholicism had in this country and for this reason, I arranged a talk between Cardinal Innitzer and Hitler in order to make sure that Hitler in the future in Austria would carry on a policy on a Christian basis. By arranging this interview, I thought I would be able to do one last service for Austria; that was the reason.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is the end of the examination.
Q. THE PRESIDENT: I have just two or three questions I should like to ask you. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. When did you first hear about the murder of Jews?
A. I believe, My Lord, that that was during the war.
Q. The war lasted six years. When during the war?
A. I cannot say with certainty, My Lord.
Q. You cannot say with more certainty than that?
A. No; our general knowledge was that the Jews were sent to camps in Poland. But we knew nothing of a systematic extermination of Jews such as we have heard of here.
Q. The witness whose affidavit your counsel has put in evidence, Marchionini, what do you know about him?
A. Marchionini is a very well known professor who was employed by the Model Hospital in Ankara, and who was also my family doctor.
Q. Do you have your volumes of exhibits before you?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Could the defendant have Volume 3?
(A document was handed to the witness) BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I refer to Volume 3, the last paragraph of the answer to Question 6.
A. One moment, My Lord. I have not found it yet
Q. There is no hurry.
A. I have the affidavit now.
Q. Do you have question 6, or rather the answer to Question 6?
A. The questions are not numbered here.
Q. It is the last question but one.
A. The last question?
Q. The last question but one.
A. Yes.
Q. In the answer to that question, he says this:
"I remember particularly clearly an invident in spring 1944 when I calle upon von Papen at the request of Herr Barlas, the Refugees Commissioner of the Jewish Agency, in order to request his assistance in saving 10,000 Jews in France from deportation to Poland for extermination.
These Jews had formerly held Turkish nationality which they had later renounced".
Then he says, through your intervention" the lives of these Jews were saved". Is that statement true?
A. Yes, certainly.
Q. So at any rate, by the spring of 1944 you knew that 10,000 Jews in France were about to be deported for extermination?
A. Yes. But I believe they were to be deported to Poland, Mr. Lord. But we did not know in 1944 that they were to be exterminated. We wanted to protect them from deportation.
Q. I thought you said the statement was true.
A. For the purpose of extermination -- I believe that we did not know that at the time. The question was only whether I was willing to help keep 10,000 Jews who were in France from being deported to Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. You may return to the dock.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I had three witnesses approved by the Tribunal. The witness Freiherr von Lersner could not come here at the time because of transportation difficulties. He could not be here before the end of July. After the questioning of the defendant, and considering the fact that Lersner has answered an interrogatory, I believe I can dispense with the witness. I regret this, because he is a man who knew the defendant during his whole political career, a witness who would have been especially valuable because of his objectivity in these question. He was president of the German delegation at Versailles.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have the affidavit or the interrogatory, you can put it in. We do not need any further statements about it.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
The second witness was Count Kageneck. Since the questions which were to be asked of Kageneck have been covered in the questioning of the defendant and the cross-examination did not touch upon them, I can also dispense with this witness.
There remains only the witness Dr. Kroll, whom I now call to the stand.
HANS KROLL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please?
A. Hans Kroll.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Witness, what was your occupation in Ankara?
A. I was the First Counsellor of the embassy, and later Minister. From the fall of 1936 until April, 1943, I was in Ankara; from April 1939 until April 1943, together with Ambassador von Papen, as his first co-worker. Daily, mostly in the morning and in the afternoon, we conferred together for several hours, so that I believe I know the various phases of his activity during this period in Turkey; that is, of his work during the war.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: These questions will refer mostly to the peace policy of the defendant. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q. Did you know Mr. von Papen before he became ambassador in Ankara?
A. No. We not in Ankara.
Q. Were you a member of the NSDAP?
A. No.
Q. After taking over the position as ambassador, Mr. von Papen came to Ankara for a short stay. What was the purpose of this visit?
A. Mr. von Papen wanted to present himself to the Turkish government and to gain information on the situation.
Q. Did Mr. von Papen at that time, through his conduct and his statement; express his agreement with German foreign policy, and in particular, with the policy towards Poland? Or did he, as far as he was able, attempt to work against this policy?
A. First, as to the arrival of Mr. von Papen, I was, of course, interested in learning how he felt about the development of the general situation, and, in particular, the Polish question. I assumed, of course, that, as he came from Germany, he knew about Hitler's plans, but I was surprised to find that he knew nothing more than I did, which was to say nothing at all.
Then we discussed the situation in detail, and I observed that Mr. von Papen, who spoke very frankly with me about these things, distrusted Hitler's foreign policy. He was an enemy of war, an honest enemy of war, and, of course, he was also an enemy of war against Poland. He was truly convinced that on the Polish question an agreement could be reached if it could only be made clear to Hitler that a conflict with Poland would, of necessity, lead to a world war. He then endeavored, and I must say in a very sound and clear and courageous language in his reports, to point out this view in his reports. And from his talks with the Turkish statesmen, as well as with the accredited diplomats in Ankara, he attempted to prove that, in fact, a conflict with Poland would of necessity lead to a conflict with England and France. and foreigners, had spoken to Hitler in this clear form, the war would probably have been avoided.
Q After the outbreak of the Polish war, what was the attitude of Mr. von Papen towards the spread of the war to the Nordic states, Holland, Belgium, and finally, Russia?
A Mr. von Papen, of course, hoped that in this winter some agreement would be reached. He knew that if the action spread to the west, a general slaughter would follow and that then it would probably be too late to talk things over. Of course, as far as possible, he looked for mediation in Turkey as well as other places, and he was glad to take any opportunity resulting from talks with his friend, the Dutch Minister in Ankara, Mr. Visser. The motive behind this offer of Visser was Holland's wish to have the war ended before spring and with the fighting in the west, and the aim was to be a talk between Germany and England.
Q We are interested in knowing what Mr. von Papen's opinion of such a peace was. Did he think that he would be able to achieve annexation by way of peace or what was the purpose of this peace which he had in mind?
A I believe it is known from the previous activity of Mr. von Papen that he was a friend of European understanding. He knew that this war had not begun because of a territorial problem but because of a principle; that is to say, so that a future one-sided aggresive war would be prevented and, therefore, in the restoration of the legal status before the war, that is, in the restoration of the status quotante on the basis of 1938, that it had with the restoration of Poland and Czechoslovakia. In this he the prerequisite for instituting talks. The second prerequisite for the successful carrying on of such a talk was for him the restoration of confidence in the German signature, which it is known Hitler's foreign policy had destroyed. The only question was how this confidence could be restored, and he realized that the prerequisite for this was a basic reform of the regime, of the system, with the aim of making Germany a legal state once more. Finally, Mr. von Papen, from his post in turkey, saw the possibility of ending the war by reaching an understanding, for turkey, like hardly any other state of the same-weight in Foreign politics, had the ideal position for mediating. It had the confidence of both belligerent parties and that is the most important thing for arranging a talk. Then He endeavoured, in all his talks with Turkish statesmen, to win Turkey over to mediate. During all his years in Turkey that was the Leitmotif, the leading motive of his work, to bring the war to an end as soon as possible.
Then, in fact, he had a great success, in that the Turkish President, in 1942, in a big public speech before the Turkish National Assembly, offered the services of Turkey in mediating between the belligerents.
Q Did you have knowledge of the efforts of Mr. von Papen to avert a spreading of the war towards Turkey against the efforts of the Axis partners? During the war there were several crises.
A I should like to say first that Papen's activity in Turkey can be summe up in one word. He considered it his mission to represent the interests of Germany, his country, and to bring them together in the interests of peace. That meant, in effect, that he endeavoured to prevent the spreading of the war to Turkey and the Near East and thus to create the prerequisite in order, at the proper time, to employ Turkey as mediator.
Now, as to the crises. I should like to limit myself to those cases in which Mr. von Papen had the impression that the neutrality of Turkey was endangered by the intentions of the Axis partners.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I did before draw your attention to the fact that there was no charge against von Papen in connection with his activities at Ankara; and also, I may add, that this was a summing up in one word I thought.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: There are only a very few case, Mr. President. He will tell us about them briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: The only way in which the evidence can be relevant at all is insofar as it throws light upon von Papen's activities before he went to Ankara. That is what I pointed out to you before.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I said the other day, Your Lordship, that the personality of a person charged with war conspiracy cannot be judged correctly if only one period of his activity is mentioned. He was at a post where he could do only negative or positive things. It is not immaterial.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, this witness has been telling us for a considerable time that his activities -- that Papen's activities were entirely peaceful and that they were endeavours to make Turkey mediate; and what he is doing now is simply going on with further details on the same subject and it is over a period when, as I say, no charge is made against von Papen at all by the prosecution.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: If the Tribunal understands the Defendant von Papen's mission in Ankara as a peace mission, I need put no further questions to the witness. Then I come to my last questions. BY DR. KUBUSCHOK:
Q What was the position of Mr. von Papen in regard to the party, especial as to the Landesleitung in Ankara?
A On his arrival von Papen was received with unconcealed distrust. No wonder, for it was known that he was known as no Socialist. In his four years in Turkey I did not meet anyone who considered him a National Socialist.
His relationship to the Party became worse in the course of the years and finaally it resulted in open conflict. That was in 1942, when the Landesgruppenleiter of the Party in Ankara once told his comrades, if it were up to him he would have Mr. von Papen shot. Then he was challenged about it and corrected himself. He said he didn't say that; he only said he would have had him put in a concentration camp.
Q What was the attitude of von Papen to the Jewish question?
A In repeated public speeches as well as in his actions, Mr. von Papen quite clearly opposed the anti-Jewish policy of the party. He was acquainted with Jewish or partly Jewish emigrants. He employed Jewish doctors; he bought in Jewish stores. In short, I believe that was one of the reasons which brought about his tension in connection with the Party.
Q Did Mr. von Papen even employ a Jewish woman in the Embassy?
AAs far as I know, yes. I believe that was the wife of his servant.
Q She was employed as a telephone operator there?
Q Do you know a Mr. Posemann? Did he have any connection with the German Embassy?
AAt my time, Posemann was not in the German Embassy. I recall that he had a bookstore in Ankara. He had nothing to do with the Embassy.
Q. What was the attitude of Mr. von Papen in the personnel question ? Did he employ National Socialists in the embassy, or to what extent did he interest himself in these questions ? What were his demands of personnel ?
A It is well known that the Party was never satisfied with von Papen's choice of workers. That was shown by the very severe consequences on the 30th of June and after the Anschluss. It was somewhat dangerous to be one of his first co-workers. a National Socialist position out of the embassy as was done in the Balkans and when he asked for personnel he chose people who he knew were not National Socialists.
I will only mention two names, Mr. von Haften and Legationsrat Trotzesolz, two men who I believe were executed in connection with the 20th of July. all efforts to remove me from my post. I don't know whether I should go into that.
Q. Please do, briefly.
A. Repeatedly -- I might say every month -- an attempt was made to have me eliminated as a deputy of von Papen. Finally, when that didn't do any good, since von Papen always opposed these attempts, the Landesgruppenleiter met with the Ortsgruppenleiter of Ankara and Istanbul in the spring of 1942 and came to see von Papen and officially in the name of the party demanded that I should be removed from my post. Von Papen refused this once more, but finally, in 1943, the pressure of the Party became too great, especially since other sources conspired against me, and so I was excluded.
Q. Finally, in the years of cooperation you observed the activity of von Papen and his personality very closely. Perhaps you can outline briefly a picture of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: He has already sketched it at very considerable length and we don't want it briefly reiterated.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I will dispense with this question. I have finished the examination of the witness.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: I have no questions, my Lord.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel want to ask any questions ? Then the witness can retire.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to refer briefly to a few documents.
In Document Book 1, I submit Document 24, page 86. I refer to the note and agreement was reached with the Prosecution to the effect that the fact should be accepted that the Enabling Act of 24 March 1933 was preceded by two Enabling Acts in 1923. Stripes of the 27th of March 1946. These are the peace efforts through Earl. The article is to supplement the interrogatory of Lersner.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say 36 ?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No, 63, page 153.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. This document that you just put before us is a document of March 27, 1946. What are we going to do with that ? It is a newspaper article.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: It is a newpaper article on an interview with Earl. The partner in this talk was Lersner. To supplement the testimony of Lersner whom we do not have here I should like to use this newspaper article. It adds to something which is briefly mentioned in Lersner's written testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: But you had the opportunity of getting an affidavit from Lersner or for putting what questions you wanted to Lersner, and now you are putting in a newspaper article dated in 1946 whilst the trial was joins on
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, I cannot hear Lersner because of his absence. It was intended to hear him as a witness. The question in the interrogatory was answered rather briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of the interrogatory ?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The Lersner interrogatory is dated 15 April 1946. It is Document 93.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal doesn't think that this document ough to be admitted. Newspaper articles whilst the trial is going on are not the sort of evidence which the Tribunal thinks it right to admit.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In Volume 3 I submit Document 99, an affidavit by Schaffgotsch, page 245. It is just being submitted, Mr. President . It is a brief affidavit concerning Papen's vain efforts in July 1934 to reach Hindenburg. Government of the 1st of February 1939, which was mentioned yesterday, and also an excerpt on foreign policy from Hitler's speech of the 23rd of March. Yesterday it was referred to during the proceedings. ask that you take judicial notice of them.
Then I have one final request. Yesterday, in the discussion of the affidavits of Schroeder and Meissner, parts were read into the record. I believe the Prosecution, since they have not made use of the documents, will be willing that these parts be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: It was Meissner's affidavit which was used to some extent, wasn't it ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, it was. My Lord, I should have thought the most convenient course was that the Tribunal would take it that I have merely put the facts out of the affidavit and would not consider that the evidence of the affidavit was before them. Otherwise, I think it would be very difficult to correct the record, but of course I accept that position.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we think so. We will treat it as those facts having been put to the witness and the witness having answered them, without considering it as a sworn statement.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, my Lord, purely as my questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I end the case of the defendant von Papen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit on Saturday in open session from ten to one.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Dr. Flaechsner on behalf of the defendant Speer.
Mr. P resident, gentlemen of the bench: we were discussing matters of evidence, matters of proof which I suggested. at that time I dispensed with the testimony of witnesses and stated that I would satisfy myself with the use of interrogatories. I had hoped I should thus be able to produce my entire evidence. However, I am not in possession of all the interrogatories I sent out. I have not received all the answers but only a part of them. Those replies which are at my disposal I will use in the examination in chief of the defendant. Therefore, a presentation and introduction of those interrogatories will take place. in such a manner that in my estimation I should acquire a day or at the most seven hours. to call the defendant S peer to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q What is your name?
Q Will you repeat this oath after me: will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(the witness repeated the oath)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Mr. Speer, will you please tell the Tribunal about your life up until the time you were appointed minister?
A I was born on the 19 M arch, 1905. My grandfather and my father were successful architects. First of all I wanted to study mathematics and then entered into the profession of architect mere by tradition than Inclination. I attended the university at Munich and Berlin and at the ago of 24, that was in the year 1929, I was the first assistant at the technical academy in Berlin ( Technische Hochschule).
At the age of 27, that war in the year '32, I went into business for myself and I remained in that position, that is being my own independent boss, until 1942 . first time. I met him and from that period of time onwards I had a rather enthusiastic course in my chosen profession of architecture for Hitler was quite fanatical on the subject of architecture and from him I received many contracts for building work, such as putting up a new Reichstag building in Berlin and *---* other buildings and here in Nurnberg on the P arty grounds. Berlin and Nurnberg. I had sketched buildings which would have become the largest in the world and the carrying through of those plans would have cost no more than two months of Germany's war expenditure. That would have been the cost to Germany. for building I lad a close personal contact and relationship with him. I belonged to a circle which consisted of other artists and of his personal staff. If Hitler had had any friends at all I certainly would have been one of his close friends. during peace, were carried on until 1941, December of '41 and only after the catastrophe which occurred in the winter of '41 in Russia was the further constructions of these buildings stopped. Workers, insofar as they were German, were used for the restoration of works which had been destroyed in Russia, and were placed at the disposal of the war effort by me.
Q The P rosecution, in document 1435, which is U.S. Exhibit 216, had quoted a remark from your first speech as a minister, dated February 1942, in which you stated that at that time you had placed ten thousand prisoners of war at the disposal of the armament industry.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. P resident, this remark may be found on page 4 of the English text and page one of the French text. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Mr. Speer, what can you tell us about this document? exert any influence as to whether these workers were to be taken into armaments or not. They were put at the disposal of the Stalags of the OKW. I assumed, I took it as a matter of course that they would be put at the disposal of armaments in the larger sense.
Q M r. Speer, did you over participate in the planning and preparation of an agressive war?
A N o. Up until the year 1942 I was active as an architect. For that reason you cannot talk about this matter at all. The buildings which I constructed were completely representative of peacetime building and as an architect and in this connection I received workers and money for these purposes. I used the material at my disposal. This material, in the last analysis, was lost to armaments. had supported or sponsored was, on the whole, especially psychologically an obstacle to armament.
Q You were the Golden P arty Emblem. When and where did you receive it?
A In the year 1938 I received the Golden Party Emblem from Hitler.
It was because I had completed the plans for a new building program in Berlin. Besides myself, five other artists received this Golden P arty Emblem.
Q Were you a member of the Reichstag? that is outside of an diction, and I was to substitute or replace a member who had been lost to the Reichstag. Hitler at that time told me that together with me, he wanted the artists represented in the Reichstag.
Q Did youever receive any donations'?
Q How did your activity as a minister start?
A On 8 February 1942 my predecessor, Dr. Todt, was killed in an airplane crash. Several days later I was called in to be his successor in his many offices. At that time I was 36 years of ago. Up until that time, Hitler saw the main sphere of Todt the building sphere, and that is why he called me tobe the successor of Todt. I believe that it was a complete surprise to everyone when I was called to office as a minister. not building but the intensification of armaments was to be the main concern, for the heavy losses of material in the winter battles which had taken place inRussia during the winter of 1941-1942 had brought about much damage. Hitler called for an intensification of armament. did you find a completely set up office?
A No, Dr. Todt had neglected this function of his up until that time, and in addition in the fall of 1941 Hitler had issued a decree according to which the armament of the army was to take second place to the armament of the Air Force. At that time he foresaw a victorious outcome of the war in Russia. He took that for granted and had decreed that armament was to be concentrated on the imminent war against England and was to be converted to that end. Because of this tremendous optimism of his, the rescrinding of that order was postponed until January 1942, and only from that date onward did Dr. Todt start -- that is, during the last month of his life -- to build up his organization and to develop it. Therefore, the task fell to me, first of all, to work myself into a completely new field and at the same time to create all organizational prerequisites for my task, to set them up, and thirdly, to restore the decreasing armament production, and first, especially, to increase production in a few months. As is very well known, I succeeded in doing that. of your task and about the circle of your collaborators? How was that to be composed?