The next piece of evidence is Speer Exhibit No. 5 and it is document No. 9. Mr. President, this is found on page 12 of the English text and page 9 of the German text. According to this document, in Italian production plants, the feeding is to be put at about the level of German food rations and in this connection, it is important that Speer at the same time had it put in writing that the families of these workers receive equivalent care as well. I had other documents of this type at my disposal but in order to save the time of the translation department, I did not include them in my document book. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Mr. Speer, to whom did the bonuses of the armament industry go, to whom were they given and what did they consist of?
A. We gave out many millions of bonuses to armament plants. They contained additional food, chocolate, cigarettes, and so forth, and these bonuses were allotted up and above the regular ration and they were given up and beyond the additional rations which were given to people who worked longer hours and who did heavy work. In the industries, these bonuses went to those workers including the foreign workers and prisoners of war and the workers from concentration camps.
from concentration camps, once more when I quote a document later.
In what form did your ministry put its demands to the industries? in the manner of production schedules. These schedules were made into demands according to workers and material at hand.
Q Could a tremendous increase in working hours, and if so, how? the month, the period of time should be equitable. Through the bombing attacks, stoppages resulted as far as supplies and the various parts and raw materials were concerned, and therefore the number of hours in industry varied from eight to twelve a day. The average, according to our statistics, might have been 60 hours to 64 hours a week. received their workers from concentration camps? industry. For the workers from concentration camps were on the whole only a part of the workers employed, and these workers were not called upon to do any more work than any of the other workers.
Q How is that shown? concentration camps work and be kept in a special part of the factory. The supervisors consisted of German foremen. The working hours, for production reasons had to be suitable with relation to the hours of work for the whole of industry, for in one industry you can work only at a certain rate. is seen unequivocally and unambiguously that the workers from concentration camps in army and naval armament and in the air armament branch worked on an average 60 hours per week. Mr. Speer, why in the case of industries were the so-called work camps established? saved, and so in this way that the workers could arrive at work in good condition, and thus ensure our adequate output.
including the workers from concentration camps, would not have been received by these men if they had come directly from Reich concentration camps; for then this additional food bonus would have been used up in the concentration camp. In this way, this part of the workers who came from concentration camps received the additional food bonuses which were granted to industry, such as cigarettes, or food allotments. And so concentration camp workers received the full benefit of these bonuses. concentration camps had advantages if they worked in factories?
A Yes. My co-workers called my attention to this fact, and when I inspected the industries, I heard of that as well. Of course, a wrong impression should not be created about the number of concentration camp inmates who worked in German industry. In toto, one per cant of the entire labor personnel came from concentration camps. inmates? concentration camps, who, however, looked well fed.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Concerning the report which Mr. Speer made about concentration camps and the treatment which the inmates received in factories, I refer to a special confidential letter of the Department Chief Schieber, dated the 7th of May, 1944. This is found Speer Document 44, which is Speer Exhibit No. 6, which I should like to submit.
Mr. President, I am sorry, this will be found in Document 2 of my document book, which I do not have at this time. But it would be a pity if I were not to discuss it at this time, for it seems to fib into this pattern. Therefore, I should like to quote briefly from it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flaechsner, the Tribunal thinks it would be much more helpful to them to have the document before them. it will not be ready before tomorrow afternoon.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I see. Mr. President, I believe that I did everything possible at the time to see that the document was put at the disposal of the translation department in good time. The difficulty must have arisen from the fact that the interrogatories did not come back in time. I assume that that is what happened.
The quotation from this document is not long, Mr. President. I believe I might as well quote from it now. Or do you wish that I dispense with it?
THE PRESIDENT: No; go on, if it is more convenient to you. I do not mind. You may go on.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Thank you very much.
The Department Chief Schieber writes to his Minister:
"Considering the care which they received from our factory managers, in spite of all the difficulties, and considering the general decent and humane treatment which foreign and concentration camp laborers received, the Jewish women in concentration camps, as well as all others worked very efficiently, and did everything in order not to be sent back to the camp.
"These facts really demand that we bring more concentration camp inmates into armament industries. " It further states a few pages down:
"I have discussed this matter with the plenipotentiary of Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl and Sturmbannfuehrer Maurer, and pointed out that if concentration camp laborers are being divided, it would be possible to exploit their work and at the same time give them better nourishment and reasonable care."
THE PRESIDENT: You need not make such long pauses as you are making.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Aside from that, Maurer is pointing out especially that Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl said that the food situation of concentration camp inmates is being improved constantly and because of special bonuses and through constant medical attention he has seen marked increase in weight and, therefore, better work achievement.
In another document, No. 46, we see that the using of concentration camp workers is recommended in armament industries in that they bring advantages to concentration camp workers and that concentration camp inmates arc glad to work in industries. on Page 11 of the document book. Your Honor, it is page 14 in the English text. This document shows that already in the year 1937 the using of inmates of concentration camps was taking place in work shops and that this work in work shops was a preferred work. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Dr. Speer, what do you know about the working conditions in subterranean factories ?
A. In subterranean factories the most modern equipment had been housed and the most modern weapons. Since we did not have many of these subterranean works we had to house these modern arrangements first of all there. These things required certain conditions of work. First of all, air which was dry and free from dust, good lighting facilities, and so forth, so that the conditions which applied to a subterranean works would apply to those in a night shift in a regular industry. I should like to add that contrary to the impression which has been created here, these subterranean factories, almost without exception, were staffed with German workers, because we had a special interest in having these modern installations manned by the best workers which were at our disposal.
Q. Can you tell us about what was the number of these ?
A. We had 300,000 cubic meters at our disposal at the end of the war and we had planned for 3,000,000 cubic meters.
Q. Mr. Speer, in the year 1943, you visited the concentration camp at Mauthausen ?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you visit it ?
A. I learned, when I inspected industries at Linz, that along the Danube, near the camp at Mauthausen, there was a large harbor installation and railroad installations which were put up so that the stone coming from the quarry at Mauthausen was to be transported to the Danube. This was a peacetime problem which I could not tolerate at all, for it was against all the decrees and directives which I had issued. I told them about my visit in advance and I wanted to see whether these buildings were an actual fact. I wanted to see to it that if that had been started it would be stopped, so that order could be established in this administrative sphere of the SS. I stated on that occasion that it would be more correct to have these workers used in war, not for peace buildings and so forth but rather to have the work in a steel plant at Linz.
Q. Will you describe the visit to the camp ?
A. My visit ostensibly followed the program as described by the witness Blaha. I saw the kitchens, the laundry, the barracks and living quarters. These barracks were put up of rather massive stone and were models of modern equipment. Since my visit had been learned of only a little bit in advance, preparations could have been made before my visit. Nevertheless, on sight, the small part of the camp which I saw made a model impression when it came to cleanliness. However, I did not see any of the workers, any of the camp inmates, since at that time they were all engaged in work. The entire inspection lasted perhaps forty-five minutes, since I had very little time at my disposal for a matter of that kind and it was quite against me spiritually to even enter a camp where these prisoners were being kept.
Q. The main purpose of your visit was to have the work stopped in those things which you did not consider were contributing to war ?
A. Yes.
Q. Upon your visit, could you learn about the working conditions that applied in this camp ?
A. No, I couldn't do that since no workers were to be seen in the camp and the harbor installations were so far from the street that I couldn't see the men who were working there.
THE PRESIDENT: The translation that came through to me was that it was against him spiritually to enter such places. Was that correct ? Well what did you say ?
DR. FLAECHSNER: I asked him whether, on the occasion of this visit, he could see the working conditions which applied, whether he could have seen them. That was my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you say anything about "spiritually" ?
THE WITNESS: No. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Did you learn, on your visit at Mauthausen or on another occasion about the cruelties and atrocities which took place at this concentration camp and at other concentration camps ?
A. No.
Q. Now, I should like to conclude my questions on the utilization of workers by asking you, did you have any interest in the fact that a healthy labor supply would be at your disposal ?
A. Yes, naturally. I had the utmost interest along this line even though I was not competent. Beginning in 1942, in armament, we had the assembly line system, and in this system there was a tremendously large percentage of skilled workers. Because of military service, these skilled laborers had become especially important, so that any loss of a worker or the illness of a worker meant a tremendous loss for me as well. training after this period for six months, the loss is a large one. Since only after half a year you can expect quality work to be done by a worker, it can be seen clearly that the care and the welfare of skilled workers in industry was of special interest to us.
Q. The prosecution holds the point of view of the extermination of worker by work. Could a change, if it had taken place through destruction by work , could that be tolerated by an industry ?
A. No. A change in the workers, in the way in which it was described here, is completely untenable for any industry. It is completely out of the question that, in any German industry, any anihilation took place without me hearing about it. I never heard anything like that.
Q. Mr. Speer, the prosecution asserts that you applied means of terror and brutality so that the achievement of compulsory workers would be increased to
A. No.
Q. Just a moment. I haven't finished. And the prosecution is of the opinion that you used SS and police against recalcitrant workers. Did you actually threaten to use such methods ?
A. No, not in that form, for that was against my interests. There were efforts in Germany to bring about increased productivity through certain compulsory measures. However, these efforts were not endorsed by me. It is quite out of the question that 14,000,000 workers can be made to produce satisfactory work through threatening of terror means, as the prosecution says.
DR. FLAECHSNER: In this connections please refer to page 7 of the English text, page 4 of the French and Russian text. I should like to quote from Document Speer No. 43. It says there:
"I do not believe that the second system which might be applied in our economy -- the system of compulsion by Industrial Commissioners, or extensive proceedings and punishment when output is insufficient, can lead to success."
Now, Mr. President I have concluded a certain pattern and chapter.
THE PRESIDENT: The court will adjourn.
( The Tribunal adjourned until 20 June 1946 at 1000 hours ).
THE PRESIDENT: I have an anouncement to make. In the first place, supplementary witnesses will be heard at the end of the case for the Defendants. Secondly, interrogatories and other documents received by that time must be offered in evidence then. Thirdly, interrogatories and other documents allowed before the end of the evidence but received at a later date will be received and considered by the Tribunal up to the end of the trial. That is all. BY DR. FLAECHSNER: to the question of how labor was introduced into industry; that is, the special demands put.
Mr. Speer. in your testimony of the 18th of October, 1945, you stated, first of all, that you demanded new laborers from Sauckel and you demanded them rather explicitly and, secondly, that you know that among these laborers there would be foreigners; thirdly, that you had known that some of these foreign workers were working in Germany against their will. Will you please comment on this statement?
A This voluntary statement is quite correct. During the war I was very grateful to Sauckel for all laborers and workers which he put at my disposal, and many a time I held him responsible for the fact that through a lack or deficiency of workers achievements were not met. I always emphasized the merits which accrued to him because of his activity, merits toward armament.
Q Now, in your testimony of the 18th of October, '45, and now again, you mention workers. Do you mean the total concept of workers, that is German workers, foreigners from occupied countries, and foreigners from friendly or annexed states, and prisoners of war?
A Yes. Beginning with the middle of 1943, I had differences with Sauckel regarding the policy of production and about the lack of reserves of German labor which was at my disposal; but that has nothing whatever to do with my general attitude toward Sauckel's work.
Q What percentage of the total laborer was the responsibility of Sauckel?
A You mean the total labor supply? over air armament as well -- perhaps thirty to forty per cent of all workers which were at our disposal. Of course the largest part of them were German worker When, in 1944, I took over air armament as well -- that was in August of 1944-I had no appreciable demand for workers because, since the ramifications of the bomber attacks on communications and transportation in the Reich, the armament production had markedly declined.
Q Was your need for workers unlimited or tremendously high?
A No. The magnitude of armament and entire production and the corresponding need for workers was governed by our raw material supply.
Q That meant your need was restricted to the availability of raw materials? reached under you. In order to achieve this increase, did the workers used increase in numbers as well?
A No. From 1942 to 1944 production was multiplied seven times as far as arms was concerned, armored vehicles five times. and general munitions six times. The number of workers in these brackets was increased by only thirty per cent. This success was not brought about through a higher utilization or exploitation of labor but rather through the doing away with various methods of production and through an improved system of planning and coordinating the armament industry and production.
Q What do you mean by the concept "production for war", "Kriegsproduktion"?
A The concept which is frequently used here, "production for war", is nothing different from the ordinary concept of production. It comprised everything which is fabricated industrially or in a business-like manner, including the civilian needs.
Q What did you mean in Germany by the Concept of "armaments"? What did that include?
A The concept of "armament" in no way restricted itself to that sphere which was delineated through the Geneva Convention.
The modern concept of "armaments " is a much more extensive and comprehensive one, It includes a sphere of much greater and much more extensive activity. In Germany, for the concept of "armaments" there were no basic principles set down, but the characteristics of the armament industry was that the Armament Inspectorate took care of it and watched over it. In Germany, for instance, the entire production of raw steel belonged to it, our foundaries, melting institutions, the production or the fabrication of aluminum and modern synthetic materials, chemicals, the bringing about of synthetic rubber or nitrogen, the production of synthetic wool, the fabrication of single parts, about which you can not say they are to be used in armament alone, such as ball bearings, gears, valves and so forth, or the production of tools; the establishing of chain production systems and the construction of commercial ships, of locomotives, heavy machinery, textile concerns, and concerns which worked with wood and leather.
determine what the percentage was, the figures of how many German industries produced armaments applicable to the Geneva Convention, and I should like to give you the figures. My co-workers agree to a man that between 14 and 20 per cent of cur armament program concerned itself with the production of planes, weapons, warships or the general equipment which the various branches of the Wehrmacht required. The bulk of the material, therefore, was not armament in the sense of the Geneva Convention, and the reason for the expansion of the concept of armament in Germany was the preferential treatment which applied to these industries, treatment which resulted in numerous industries pressing to be called armament industries.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, in the interrogatories which have not been submitted to the Tribunal because the book is not ready, the witness Sauer, under figures 7 and 10, the witness Schieber under figures 6 to 9, and the witness Kerrl under figures 4 to 7, concern themselves with the restrictions as applied to the concept of armament. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q Mr. Speer, just by way of example, you know the concern Krupp at Essen. How far did this concern produce armament equipment in the sense of the Geneva prisoner of war agreement, that is, weapons, munitions, and objects which are necessary for direct conduct of war? will devote only a fraction of its productivity to war. Of Course, I must point out the fact that this concern, the firm of Krupp, was one of those armament industries which participated least of all on a percentage basis in armament production. which concerned themselves with the production of steel. They comprised the main factors of production at Krupp. There was the manufacture of locomotives and some work to be done for chemical purposes. These were some of the specialties of Krupp. was the building of armored towers for warships, and special guns. That was a facility which they had, but which they did not utilize.
In the year 1944, Krupp erected the first works for the production of guns. Up until that time, Krupp concerned himself in the main with the development or the building of new weapons, and then the fabrication was turned over to other firms.
To summarize, one can say that at Krupp's, 10 to 15 per cent of the personnel turned out armament equipment in the sense of the Geneva prisoner of war agreement, even though the entire works was considered a war industry. would receive German or foreign workers?
A My ministry had no influence in that direction at all. The need for workers was reported by the industries which were subordinate to me. I received a total figure of workers needed, but there was no special segregation as to German or foreign workers. This total figure was transmitted to the General Plenipotentiary for Labor. Sauckel refused to take over detailed demands, and he was quite right in this matter, for he could not issue detailed directives to the offices which were subordinate to him, that is, dealing with the percentage of German or foreign workers which were to be allocated to the various industries. care of by the labor offices without any intervention of my offices or agencies. Therefore, in this case we did not exert influence as to whether Germans, prisoners of war, or foreigners were allocated to any special industry. The industry then had to report back to us about the number of workers that they had received. This report was turned in to my ministry in a total or lump figure so that I had no knowledge of the number of foreign workers or prisoners of war contained in the total figure. Of course, I knew that foreign workers worked on armament equipment, and I quite agreed with that.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, for the assistance of the Tribunal I would like to remark that figures 7 and 17 of the interrogatory of the witness Schmelte, and figures 1 and 8 of the same interrogatory deal with these questions. In the interrogatory of Schieber, numbers 10, 11, 30 and 31 apply to this point. Both of these witnesses deal with these questions in their interrogatories. Furthermore, in the interrogatory deposed by Kerrl, numbers 8 and 9 apply to this point, and relevant material is contained therein.
BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q Mr. Speer, who was responsible for demanding the manpower needed for armament from the Plenipotentiary General for Manpower? were distributed according to demands in the various economic sectors, There were perhaps 15 different sectors which placed their demands. I placed demands for army and navy armament and for building, and beginning with September of 1943 for the sectors of chemisty, mining, and the balance of production. Air armament had its special labor department, and their demands were voiced by the Reichsluftfahrt Ministerium, the Reich Air Ministy.
DR. FLAECHSNER: In his interrogatory, the witness Schmelte has dealt with this matter in his answer to figure 2; the witness Schieber in his answer to figures 2, 3, and 5 concerns himself with this point also. Then the witness Kerrl deals with this matter an figures 2 and 3 of his interrogatory. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q Weren't the demands for workers for these three branches of the Wehrmacht centralized in your Ministry? taken over the Armament Office from General Thomas, and this office was a *---* or joint office of all three Wehrmacht branches and labor questions were discussed. Through an agreement between Goering and myself, we had established that air armament should be independent of my ministry and should look out for its own interests. Armament and had my own interests, and since he wanted to make decisions of his own regarding labor power about a unit that was not subordinate to me.
Q. In how far are you responsible for supplying work to prisoners of war in armament, a patter which is dealt with in the Geneva Convention?
A. I did not exert my influence that prisoners of war be employed contrart to the directive given out by the OKW. I knew the point of view held by the OKW and according to which the Geneva Convention was to be strictly observed. Of course, I knew as well, that these Geneva Conventions and regulations did not apply to Russian prisoners of war and Italian internees. I could not exert any influence on the allocation of prisoners of war to the various industries. This allocation was determined by the Labor Office in connection with the lower levels of the prisoner of war system with the socalled Stalag. That was a matter that was handled by them. the witness Schmelte and his reply as given under figure 14.
Mr. Speer, who was the decisive officer who was under the OKW and who made decisions?
A. The supervision of the actual usage and employment of prisoners of war was carried out through the economy officer (Wirtschaftsoffizier) and that was incorporated into the system of the Wehrkreisbefehlshaber and was under the jurisdiction of the army.
Q The Prosecution has submitted an affidavit by Mr. Duess, who is an American statistics expert. This is document 2520-PS. hundred thousand prisoners of war were employed. These figures supposedly originate from statistics in your ministry. Will you comment on this figure?
A. The figures are well-known to me on the basis of my activity as a minister and they are correct. In this figure of four hundred thousand prisoners of war we are concerned with the total number of prisoners of war employed in armament production. assume that these prisoners of war were connected with the production of munitions along the lines of the Geneva Convention. Statistics applying to the number of prisoners of war employed in those industries which produced goods in in compliance with the Geneva Convention, such statistics were not kept and it is a figure that cannot be deduced from my figures.
two to three hundred thousand Italian military internees are counted in who at that time were brought into the sphere of my activity and production at the time. This affidavit does not prove that prisoners of war were concerned with the production of war products and munitions, as such.
Q. The Central Planning Board is mentioned in this connection. You were a member of this Board. Can you picture the origin of the Central Planning Board and its sphere of activity and go into detail?
A. When in 1942 I assumed my office it was an urgent necessity that the allocation and distribution of various materials be centralized for the three branches of the Wehrmacht and that the direction of war economy in the long run be guaranteed. Up until that time this matter had been taken care of in the Ministry of Economy and some of the duties were carried on in the OKW. Both of these agencies were much too weak to make their will prevail against the three parts of the Wehrmacht. ed by the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan and the people who could make decisions were the three members, Milch, Koerner and myself. We could make decisions only through a common decision, a joint decision, which, however, could be brought about without any difficulty in every case. It is quite obvious that on the basis of my predominant position that I was the decisive man, the decisive factor in the Central Planning Board. designated and the decree which I had drafted was set down and established by Goering in the form of a decree. matter which was incorporated in this decree. This activity was not carried through systematically by the Central Planning Board despite the documents which have been presented here. But I tried, as far as the decisions regarding demands and allocation of labor was concerned, to have that decision made by me since this was an essential factor in the direction and managing of the entire economy.
However, Sauckel always refused on this point because he considered that I was interfering or intervening in his rights.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I should like to submit the decree of Goering regarding the establishment of a Central Planning Board, under the Four Year Plan. It was published on the 25 April, 1942 and this shall be Speer document number 2, Exhibit number 7. I should like to submit this.
Mr. President, this document may be found on page 17 of the English document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. What number are giving to it? On the document here it has Speer number 142.
DR. FLAECHSNER: No, Mr. President, that must be a typographical error. It should be 42, Mr. President. The "one" should be struck out.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Speer Exhibit number 7.
THE PRESIDENT: What does 42 mean? What is the point of putting 42 on it if its Exhibit number 7?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, that is the number according to which the document was admitted, when we compiled out document book. However, the exhibit number, number 7, is the decisive number in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FLAECHSNER: The other number is only used for the assistance in finding this document more readily. It is on page 17 of the English text and on this occasion I should like to call the attention of the High Tribunal to figure three of this decree, according to which the Central Planning Board had to decide about all industrial mattes, about raw materials, about the distribution of raw materials and the inclusion of demands of the total economy and of the transportation system. This decree does not contain any regulation about workers and workers' problems. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q. Mr. Speer, how did it come about that despite this labor demands were discussed in the Central Planning Board?
A. All of the sixteen meeting of the Central Planning Board which took place from 1942 until 1945, those minutes are contained in the stenographic records. These five thousand typed ages give a clear picture of the activities carried on and show the activities and the sphere of activity of the Central Planning Board. Any export can see from that there was no planning with regard to manpower. It is quite clear that a plan regarding labor would have to be carried through at least on a three month basis, a system which we had to follow in regard to the plans as to raw materials. In fact in the Central Planning Board three to four meetings did take place which concerned themselves with labor. These three or four discussions came about in the following manner. They were hold for the following reasons:
the total economy, when soldiers were taken into the Wehrmacht, I had reserved for myself the right to distribute and allocate the various recruitment quotas among the various sectors. This distribution was discussed in the Central Planning Board because it was considered a neutral topic. At this session, of course there was a representative of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor, since at the same time the problem of replacements had to be dealt with. Another problem which was discussed in the Central Planning Board on another sector was the distribution and allocation of coal for the following year. As it was in England coal was the decisive factor in our war production. At these discussions we had to determine at the same time how the demands for labor supply for the mines could we make plans which could be carried through for the following year. From this discussion resulted the use of Russian prisoners of war in mines, a matter which has been mentioned here. parties were discussed. They were discussed in the way the Prosecution would like to generalize in regard to the sessions of the Central Planning Board. These sessions took place in February and March of 1944, and neither before nor after were these sessions ever repeated. These two sessions took place during my illness. At that time I was not quite clear why Sauckel at first complied with my wish to have the Central Planning Board put under my ministry and then later on went back on his promise. Central Planning Board. Are these extracts, as far as you know, from the stenographic record, or are they taken from the minutes? with the results of the meeting, and these minutes are the actual results of the meeting. From the minutes themselves the Prosecution has thus far submitted no material. The matters contained in the stenographic record and the material the has been submitted here are, of course, remarks and debates which always take place when matters of such importance are dealt with, in very war economy of every country, even when the authorities involved are not directly responsible, as in the use of manpower.