A. No.
Q All right. I shall read to you from your document bock. Otherwise, we shall lose too much time with you. This is in the order dated the 22nd of April, 1942, signed by Goering. This order is in your document book in the first volume, Page 14 of the Russian text and Page 17 of the English text.
"with a view towards assuring priority of armaments as ordered by Hitler, and to summarize all the hands which are made on the total economy and in order to find new sources of raw material, I order that there be organized a Central Planning Board." In the third part, the tasks of the central Planning Board are enumerated:
"The Central Planning Board encompasses the sphere of the entire economy, and has among others the following tasks:
"Point C: The distribution of raw materials, especially iron and the metals, among all places requiring them, and also a search for new sources of the raw material."
A Yes. There is a distinction to be made. I was told "sources of raw materials." I understand "sources of raw materials" to mean "ore", for example, or coal. What this paragraph says is the "production of new raw materials." That means the construction of a factory for steel production, for instance, or an aluminum factory. industry was important, and that I took ever this activity.
Q Yes. Of course, it is rather difficult to day it. Will you tell us why there is this difference? having to be translated twice, these technical expressions are rendered falsely. The meaning of the paragraph is completely clear. Every expert can confirm it. That is the same activity.
Q 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?
A No. Funk worked hardly at all in the Central Planning Board. That is why I did not list him. In September, 1943, he became a member officially; but after that time he took part in only one or two meetings, so that his activity was very slight.
Q I did not ask you about his activity; I am asking you whether Funk was a member of the Central Planning Board.
Q And it was purely through accident that you did not name him? Or did you have any particular purpose in not naming him? beginning, because I spoke only of the formation of the Central planning Board.
Q All right. Here you maintain that you were concerned with peaceful construction, and so far as the appointment to the post of the Minister of Armaments was concerned, you accepted this without any desire or any wish, and you had your qualms about it. Do you stillmaintain the same view?
A Can I have the question repeated?
Q If you please. Here you stated several times, in replying to the questions of your defense counsel, that the post of the Minister of Armament was accepted by you without any special wish on your part, and that you were really not concerned about it, and you did not particularly care to accept it. Do you still maintain that now? industry in the Rhine district. Do you remember what you said to them? I shall quote one paragraph from your speech. You said:
"In the spring of 1942, without worrying about it, I accepted the demands propounded by Hitler as a program which must be fulfilled, which I am fulfilling now, and which shall be fulfilled."
Did you mention that before?
A Yes. But that has nothing to do with that statement of yours. The demands meant here are the demands for an increase in military armament. These are the ones I accepted. But in addition, of course, I immediately accepted the appointment of Armament Minister without any reservation. I never denied that. I only said that I would rather be an architect then an armament minister. That could be misunderstood.
speech in Munich:
"I gave up all this (meaning architecture) to dedicate myself wholly to the solution of the war problems, as is expected from all of us."
Is this the same sort of thing which you are saying now?
A Yes. I believe that that was the custom in your state, too.
Q I am not asking you about our state. We are not talking about our state here. I am asking you what you said to the Gauleiters and what you are testifying to how. certain that you do not understand that in a war one should accept the post of armament minister. If it is necessary, that is a matter of course. I cannot understand why you do not understand that and why you want to reproach me for doing so. not think then that you would be held responsible before the International Military Tribunal for your words spoken in the past.
A Excuse me; one moment, please. I must answer this question, because you read this out of my document book. I hope you consider me intelligent enough to be able to set up my document book correctly.
QQuite so, quite so. But these documents are not only in your possession, but also in the possession of the prosecution. However, we shall pass on to the next question. testified about the principles and pacts 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 the 19th of April, 1942?
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I submit this article as an exhibit, USSR 479.
BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: your ministry.
"One thing, however, will become necessary, and that is the most energetic procedure with the most source punishment when offenses occur which are in any way detrimental to the interests of the state .... with imprisonment or death ... The war must be won."
Did you write this?
Now, I shall remind you of another article of yours. You will also be given a copy of this.
A May I ask you to read the whole paragraph? You left out a few sentences.
Q Yes, yes, I emitted a paragraph or two. Now I will ask you a question on it.
A But they show why these 2,000 death sentences were provided. I believe you must quote that in order not to lose the context. wards. But meanwhile listen to the question as I ask them to you now. If you want to give your explanation in regard to this, you are entitled to do so later.
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, the Tribunal would prefer to have the comments new.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, if the defendant wishes to give an explanation, I shall let him do so, of course.
THE WITNESS: The text which you omitted roads as fellows:
"At my suggestion, the Fuehrer ordered that those heads of concerns and employees, and also these officials and officers who attempted to give inaccurate facts about materials or workers will receive severe sentences, even death sentences."
That is considered as follows. When I took over my office, the requests to the Central Agencies were added to my intermediate agencies. Each of the many agencies added a suggestion of its own, so that the demands which reached me were quite enormous, incredible, and no planning was possible for this reason.
For example, the demands which I received for copper in one year was mere than the while world's production of copper in one year, because those additions had been made. And in order to prevent this and get accurate indications, I issued an order to these officials, officers, heads of concerns, and employees, which was to prevent them from doing this.
In my Gauleiter speech, I mentioned it. It says that this decree would result in no one's daring to give false indications, and I assumed that the intent of the decree would be fulfilled, and that it would never be necessary to put the decree into effect, since I did not believe that the heads of concerns, employees, employees, officials, and officers, would have enough courage to give such false indications in view of such a high penalty. and workers which reached me were considerably reduced by this measure. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: cluded only production. Did I understand you correctly?
concerned, wasn't it included in your duties ? my task; that is true. Then I was in charge of everything from raw materials to the finished products. you will be given this issue now --- and I submit this document to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit 480-- it is written in the book : " On the basis of the Fuehrer directive of the 2nd September 1943, about the concentration of war economy and on the basis of a decree of the Reichsmarshal of the Greater German Reich and the Plenipotentiary for the Four Year Plan, and the Central Planning of the 4th of September 1943, Reichsminister Speer as a minister for armament and war industry is now responsible for the entire war economic production in his capacity as Reich Minister for armament and war production. He alone as plenipotentiary is responsible for supplies, direction and execution of the trade war economy." Is this correct ? I ask you to asnwer in brief; is it correct or not ?
A That is correct in a layman's term, because the term of war materials does not quite cover armament and war material. This was not drawn up by an export but otherwise it agrees with what I have testified. I said that war production Included total production. war industry but also for war economy as well and these are two different things.
A No, that is a mistake : It says here "trade war economy",(Gewerbliche Kriegswirtschaft). That is something similar to production ; that is war production in trade and industry; that is a limitation and if it says"all war production" it probably means production according to the person who drew this up.
Q All right, we will pass to the next question. You mentioned here already that having accepted the post of Minister in 1942, you inherited a great task and heavy task, if one can express one's self; and also tell us briefly, please, what was the situation in so far as this strategic role is concerned, and in particular with metals as used in the war industry ?
THE PRESIDENT : General Raginsky, is it necessary for us to go into details ? Isn't it obvious that a man who was controlling many millions of workers had a large task ? What is this directed to ?
GENERAL RAGINSKY : Mr. President, the question is a preparatory sort of question that leads to another question and in as much as it is connected --
THE PRESIDENT : What is the ultimate object of the cross examination ? You say it is leading to something else. What is it leading to ?
GENERAL RAGINSKY : The Object is to prove that the defendant Speer participated in the economic plundering and looting of Occupied Territories.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, if you ask him directly about that.
GENERAL RAGINSKY : That is exactly what I am getting at. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY : ing of Occupied Territories ?
A Economic plundering of Occupied Countries ? I participated in economic exploitation of the Occupied Countries. I don't know what plundering of an occupied territory means.
Q To liquidate strategic raw materials; and did you import metals from Belgium, France and other Occupied Territories ? of part in it. I was not responsible for it but certainly I urged that we should get as much metal as possible from there. qualify your answer. Do you remember Hitler's order about concentration of war economy, published on the 2nd of September, You will be given a copy of this order right now. This document is being submitted as USSR Exhibit 482. I don't intend to read all of this as it will take too much time. I would like to read into the record only a few paragraphs in this order, beginning with the following sentence : "Taking into consideration the demands of war and better utilization of manpower, I order the following : " Paragraph 2. "The authorities of the Reichsminister for Economy in this sphere of raw materials production and in industry are given to the Reichsminister for Armament and ammunition. The Reichsminister for Armament in the war industry, because of his greater scope of task is called the Minister For Armament and War Industry". Did you find what I just said ?
this connection, with this order, how were the functions separated between you and Funk ?
A That is shown from the text here; that I was in charge of all production from raw materials to the final product and Funk was in charge of all general economic questions, primarily the question of transfer of money and the questions of stock and foreign trade, and so forth, but that is not and exhaustive description which I have just given, it is just an approximate one.
Q I am satisfied with this answer. In connection with this order, did you receive plenipotentiary powers in so far as regulation of the goods exchange is concerned or trade ?
A I don't know what you mean.
Q All right. In order not to lose any time, you will be given a document signed by you and Funk, which is dated the 6th of September 1943. This document I present to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit 483. I shall read the first sentence of the first paragraph : "In as much as the order for the authority of the Reichsminister of Economy also includes the regulation of goods exchange, this authority for the period of the war is given over to the Minister For Armament and War Industry." In this way, your role in the war effort of Germany, your role during the period of the war, the role of a leader of economy, war economy in Germany, it was much broader and wider in scope than what you presented here at the Tribunal sessions ; Wasn't it so ?
A No, I did not try to present the situation any differently. I said that the armament minister in the war was the most important position in the Reich; everything has to go through the armament industry. I don't believe any more comprehensive presentation of my task can be given. This presentation of the matter of my exchange of goods is a matter of subordinate significance. I can't even say what it means. It is a technical term which I don't understand. I can't even say it means. It is a technical term which I don't understand.
Q Yes, but this document is signed by you and now you don't know exactly what is meant by it. You signed it together with Funk. the German Labor Front maintained and was there any contact between the two organizations ?
as in all other important offices in the Reich.
Q Won't you name that officer ? under me. concerns, such as concerns of fabrication and lumber mills should not be included in the list of war concerns. Did I understand you correctly, did you maintain this ?
A No, that is a mistake. That must have been wrongly translated,
Q How should I understand you correctly ?
A I believe that there are two mistakes in translation here. In the first place, in my testimony I did not speak of war industry but of the term "armament". I said that this term "armament" includes textile concerns and wood and leather concernes. Armament and war industry are two entirely different terms, however. armament ? although in fact they did not produce any armament articles in the stricter sense.
Q Doesn't the textile industry manufacture parachutes for the Navy and ammunition for the Air Corps? not forbidden, for prisoners of war to produce then. I have the text here. I can read it to you. manufactured without cellulose and, therefore, you are narrowing down the conception of war industry and war production?
A No. You misunderstood no completely. I wanted to make the concept of armament production as wide as possible in order to prove that this concept, "armament industry", is something entirely different than the industries that produce armament in the sense of the Geneva Convention.
Q All right. You testified to your objection to the utilization of foreign workers with the motives, which Schmelter indicated in his testimony. He was in charge of labor in your ministry. This testimony is presented by your defense counsel. I shall read only one paragraph and will you please confirm whether it is correct or not: "minister Speer several times mentioned to us that utilization of foreign workers will create great difficulties for the Reich so far as the food supply for the workers is concerned." Were these the motives for your objections?
A The translation must be incorrect here. I know exactly how the text reads and the sense of this is correct. It was the following problem: If we brought now workers to Germany for these works we had to supply the basic calleries which are necessary to feed a human being, but the Germans still working in Germany had to receive these basic callories anyhow. As a result, the food supply was saved if I occupied German workers in Germany and the additional callories which are necessary for persons doing heavy work and working longer hours could be increased, somewhat. That was the sense of Schmelter's statement. and here you are expressing details which are of no interest to me. I am asking you about this particular place from the testimony on the part of Schmelter that tied into the record. Was his testimony correct as to the facts or not?
A It was falsely translated. I should like to have the original in German. pass to the next question.
A But it is necessary to show it to me. In cross examination I don't have to take my document book on to the stand with me.
THE PRESIDENT: You must give him the document if you have the document.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, this document is incorporated into the document book presented by the defense counsel. The Tribunal has the original. I have only the Russian translation of the document. Schmelter's affidavit was quoted yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got it, Dr. Flaechsner?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Yes.
(Handing instrument to witness.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: On what page is it?
GENERAL RAGINSKY: This is Page 192 in the Russian translation, answer to Question No. 13, the last paragraph of the reply.
THE WITNESS: Yes. In the German text, he referred repeatedly to the fact that the employment of foreign workers would require greater difficulties in the manufacturing and additional feeding in the Reich. I explained that; I explained for what reasons that was the case. I believe the same testimony, if you don't believe me, is given later, this explanation of mine. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: that the workers were the ones who were brought from occupied territories answered: "Yes, this was quite a debatable question. We always used to say that Sauckel will leave only partisans in there if he will use the measures of enforcing recruitment." In connection with this, I say you not only knew of the fact that people who were working in your industries were enslaved workers but you also knew about the methods used by Sauckel. Do you confirm that?
their will. I have already said so. I have also said that the effect of this compulsory recruitment I considered disadvantageous for production in the occupied territories. I repeat my testimony.
Q There is no use in repeating your testimony. Tellus, didn't you insist on Sauckel supplying you with workers, which he had to bring in forcibly, beyond those demands that you had already made? I shall remind you of your letter to Sauckel. This will expedite the proceedings. On the 6th of January, 1944, you wrote to Sauckel: "My dear Party-Comrade Sauckel: ------I ask you, in accordance to your promise with the Fuehrer, to assign these workers in such a manner as to enable the timely execution of the orders issued to me by the Fuehrer. An immediate requirement of labor for the Todt Organization of 70,000 workers also exists for the time limits on the Atlantic Wall issued by the Fuehrer through Order No. 51, which was announced more than six months ago. ---" Did you write this letter? Do you confine it?
A Yes. I even admit that I included this letter in my document book for the following reasons: On the 4th of January, 1944, there took place the talk at which Hitler ordered that one million workers were to be brought from France to Germany. On the same day I told General Studt, my deputy in France, that the need for heavy industries was to be covered before sending workers to Germany, as stated in the letter which you have in your hand here. I told Sauckel two days later that my need in France was 800,000 workers for French concerns and that on the Atlantic Wall there was also a need for workers and that those needs were to be covered first, before the one million workers were sent to Germany. I said yesterday that through these two letter the drive which had been ordered by Hitler was stopped. The purpose was that the military commander who received this letter would realize that first the workers were to be used in France; that was very valuable to the military commander. in charge of there were forced laborers who formerly were convicts or prisoners and whose terms of confinement had already expired? Did you knew about it?
here from a document.
Q Did you know it or did you not? which is in my document book, but I could not possibly remember all these details. special letter addressed to you personally, wrote to you about it and you could not possibly have not known it in 1944. That particular circumstance, the fact that this letter is included in your document book, does not chance the situation generally? the workers who had worked out their sentences. I can submit this letter at any time. I did not do so because the document book would be too long. This letter shows that I asked Himmler that these workers, after they had fulfilled their sentences, could be released. Himmler's point of view was that these workers should remain in custody. relative to the question of manpower for mining industries? Do you remember this letter and the contents of this letter?
GENERAL RAGINSKY: This document was presented to the Tribunal as U.S.A. Exhibit 455 and has been submitted here several times. Therefore, I think it is not necessary to read all of it into the record, but I will read just a few basic points. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY:
Q The Fuehrer's order is mentioned in it, the Fuehrer's order to assign 300,000 Russian prisoners of war to coal mining. Do you remember about this order?
Q You will be given a chance to see it. In paragraph 2 of this document it is mentioned that all prisoners-of-war were ordered to work here in the Eastern countries after 5 July 1943 and there, they were to be made available immediately for use in the coal mining industry. "All male prisoners, from 16 to 55 years age, captured in guerilla fighting in the operational area, the army area, the Eastern commissariats, the Government General and the Balkans, will in the future be considered prisoners of war. The same applies to those males in the newly conquered prisoners of the East. They are to be sent to prisoner of war camps, and are to be brought from there for labor allocation 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 acknowledge it?
A No, I don't admit it.
A I don't know whether you mean that the prisoners who were taken and if they were to be sent to the mines. At the time, of course I assumed that they were taken prisoner in the fighting, and a partisan captured in battle is, of course, a prisoner of war. But I have heard here that the prisoners in the partisan areas were not treated as prisoners-of-war. This is to the contrary. It shows that prisoners of the partisan area were prisoners-of-war. document. I ask 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 didn't acknowledge it and we will pass on to the next document. place in Hitler's quarters when the question for utilization of manpower for 1944 was discussed. You stated that you would have to have additional 1,300,000 workers. During this meeting, a resolution was adopted that Sauckel, in 1944, would furnish at least not less than 4,000,000 workers from occupational territory and to help him supply this number of workers, Himmler must help him.
And, in the minutes of the meeting, signed by Lammers, it is stated that all participants of the meeting decided unanimously. Do you acknowledge the fact that if you participated in this meeting you also approved of this program?
A The program was not carried out in any way. This program was not carried out. you have not. . .
THE PRESIDENT: General Raginsky, from the outset of this Defendant's statements, if I understand it, he has admitted that he knows that prisoners-of-war and other workers were brought to Germany against their will. He has never denied it.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Yes, Mr. President, he admitted it. However, the question is whether he admits that he himself is responsible for this meeting which he attended on the 4th of January. He did not answer it and I am asking him again. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY:
Q I shall repeat my question. I am asking you, what about the fact whether Sauckel was really to accomplish this program? My question is this, whether on 4 January, you participated in a decision taken at Hitler's headquarters that a plan be drawn placing into the labor camps 4,000,000 people by Sauckel, with the help of Himmler? You participated in that, didn't you? It is obvious from the minutes which states that the decision was unanimous. Now, on the basis of this, do you accept responsibility for this? I assume that that will be decided by the Tribunal. I cannot establish that myself here. sented to the Tribunal, USA Exhibit No. 184. In this document it is stated that it will be necessary to mobilize and to draft people into all new Eastern territories.
In this document, it is also stated that the Reich Minister of Armament gave his approval to this order and the document ends with the following sentence?
"Medical inspection and mobilization means must be accomplished at greatest possible speed and with great energy and with the utilizing of necessary measures."
Do you remember this order?
Q 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 whom you criticized?
A No, I won't name them. ticize anybody, shall I understand it this way?
A I did criticize thorn but I don't consider it right to criticize them here.
Q Well, I won't insist on an answer to this question.
Tell us, you had some differences with Hitler. Did they begin after you had convinced yourself of the fact that Germany had lost the war? to the dissolution of industrial concerns in the Eastern section of the Reich. But, you really directed a plan to occupy these regions so that in the future once again you could save those concerns for yourself.
A No, that was not the reason. I explained that in detail yesterday, that I used that as an excuse in order to prevent their destruction. If you will look at my memorandum, for instance, it was shown that there was no question of re-occupation and I believe that no military leaders thought that a re-occupation of France, Belgium or Holland was possible in 1944. The same thing was true of the Eastern territories, of course.
document. It would expedite time. It is a memorandum, or a draft of a telegram which you prepared for Gauleiters you mentioned, and I read page 56, Volume 1 of your document book.
"That is not the reason that regions will be returned to us inasmuch as the Western regions are forced to wage a war." you wrote to Gauleiter Wegner, Simon and others?
A It was quoted by my lawyers 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. said yesterday, and if you are going to tell us what you said yesterday. . .
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him a question which was asked yesterday. He must give the same answer if he wants to give a consistent answer.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: Mr. President, I am asking him this question because according to my opinion, he has answered this question because according to my opinion, he has answered this question very wrongly. Therefore, I think to repeat yesterday's answer is 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 said he had answered the question truthfully yesterday, but if you want him to repeat it again, he will do it but it will takd about 10 minutes to do it. That's what he said and it is a perfectly proper answer.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: I prefer to pass on to the nest question. BY GENERAL RAGINSKY: of industrial firms was delivered by you to your Gauleiters?
A That was not sent to my Gauleiters. That was sent to my deputy and Gauleiters. The Gauleiters had to be informed because they might, on their own initiative, order Destructions and since the Gauleiters were not subordinated to me, I had to send this teletype message to Bormann, to whom the Gauleiters were subordinated and I had to have it sent to him.
Q You stated that the adherents of Hitler's scorched earth policy were Ley, Goebbels and Bormann. Now, how about the ones who are alive now, those who are now sitting in the dock. Didn't any one of them support Hitler? scorched earth policy. On the contrary, Funk, for example, was one of those who opposed it very strongly.
Q Yes. This policy was advocated only by those people who are dead now. or did other things. addressed to Hitler, dated March 1945. Tell us, after these letters, did you lose Hitler's confidence? Hitler wanted me to go on permanent leave. That is, in effect I would be dismissed. But I did not want to.
Q I have heard this before. But nevertheless, Hitler appointed you, Speer, to be in charge of all destruction.
A Yes, it was so. I was competent for the destruction or nondestruction of industry in Germany after the 19th of march 1945. Then, a Hitler decree, which was also submitted, took away from me this power to carry out destruction, and through Hitler's decree of the 30th of March 1945, which I drew up, I obtained the right to carry out destruction again. But the main thing is that I submitted my own orders which I issued on the basis of this power to carry out destruction. They show clearly that I prohibited the carrying out of destruction. It is not important what Hitler's decree was like, but what my execution decrees were. That is also among the documents. did not regard you as one who opposed him? could not dispense with my services for reasons of domestic politics or foreign politics. That was his explanation. I believe that his confidence in me was shaken already, for in his testament he named another as successor.
AAnd the last question. In April, 1945, in Hamburg in a radio studio, you wrote a speech to be made Should Berlin fall, and in this speech, which was not made or published, you were in favor of prohibiting the organization of Werewolves.
Tell us who was in charge of the Werewolves.
Q And besides Bormann, who?
A No, just Bormann as far as I know. I can't say exactly. The Werewolves were an organization which was subordinate to Bormann.
Q That is understood. If Bormann were alive, then it would happen that the leader of this organization was Himmler. One would hardly expect another answer.
GENERAL RAGINSKY: I have no more questions of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius, did you want to ask something arising out of the cross examination?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have only a few questions on the cross examination. BY DR. SERVATIUS: concerns, and that you reported them to the DAF or to Sauckel.
A No, I was asked whether I received reports on such conditions. I said yes, and I then passed them on to Sauckel or to the DAF because they were the competent authorities.
Q What were the contents of these reports which were sent to Sauckel? precisely receiving such reports. The question was only a theoretical one, what would I have done if I had received such reports. I said I am sure reports reached me, but I cannot recall their contents.
Q What was Sauckel to do then? information about conditions in his field of work. through food delivery, and so forth.