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.
Commitment was responsible for working conditions. That was also shown by the decree which Goering signed. Of course, in order to make working conditions perfect for workers, there were other authorities; that is clear. practical aid. That was impossible because transportation and telephone connections were generally cut, but that was settled on a local basis.
Q In other words, Sauckel could not do anything? this work.
Q He had to turn to you for any material. Everything was confiscated for armament. me, and he then received large amounts of building materials. I don't mean Sauckel received them, but as far as I recall, it was the German Labor Front in general, which actually took care of the camps.
Q What were the agencies which exercised this care? Were you not the agency that cared for the concerns?
A Not in the sense in which you mean. You want me to say that I was in charge of working conditions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks that we have been all over this already with the witness, Dr. Servatius.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I believe this question was not discussed Yesterday the self administration was discussed. There is the question of the agencies caring for the armament industry, and there is a possibility of the defendant Speer's contacting the concerns through the Labor Commitment Engineers. I wanted to ask one question about that.
THE WITNESS: I will be glad to explain it. BY DR. SERVATIUS: satzingeneure, havethe possibility of improving conditions in the concerns, and did you have supervision of conditions?
A I have to describe the work of these offices. They had an engineering task. That is shown from their title.
Q It was limited to this engineering task?
DR. SERVATIUS: Then I have no more questions.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Mr. President, I have two questions in reference to the cross examination. BY DR. FLAECHSNER:
Q Mr. Speer, I refer to the answer which you gave to Justice Jackson at the end of the cross examination. To clear up the matter, I should like to ask: Assuming total responsibility, did you want to recognize the guilt or responsibility, or did you want to assume historical responsibility for your own people and for history? Court will decide. I only meant to say that even in a totalitarian system there must be total responsibility, and that it is impossible, after the catastrophe, to evade this total responsibility. If the war had been won, the leaders would also have assumed total responsibility. But to the extent that that is punishable or moral I cannot decide and do not want to decide. events which for the most part, I believe, concerned the Krupp firm exclusively.
Did you say that you yourself had no knowledge of these events? Did I understand you correctly? to judge these documents.
DR. FLAECHSNER: I have no more questions, Mr. President. I must reserve the right, in connection with these affidavits introduced against my client -- it was not quite clear to me -- to cross examine the persons who issued these affidavits. I may have to do that. They are events of which I had no knowledge previously.
Then, Mr. President, in five minutes I will be finished with my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flaechsner, with reference to those affidavits, if you want to cross-examine any witness you must apply in writing to do so, and you must do so promptly. I think I am correct in saying that there are only two other of the defendants to be examined, and unless the application comes in soon, it will not be possible to find the witnesses or to bring then here in time.
Now, you say you will finish in five minutes?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you may as well finish now, then, However, Dr. Flaechsner, the Tribunal has one or two questions to put to the defendant. BY THE TRIBUNAL (Judge Biddle) : in war industry and in the making of munitions, do you remember?
Q Were there regulations to that effect?
Q There were regulations to that effect?
A I said that from my memory, which is not precise. I only recall talks with Keitel about the employment in individual cases, and in these individual cases Keitel refused it. Otherwise I had no knowledge. tion, did you? they were used in war industries, I suppose, were they not? I think those were your words, were they not, "a bad reputation"? Is that right?
Q What did you mean by that phrase "bad reputation"?
What sort of reputation, for what?
A That is hard to define. It was known in Germany that a stay in a concentration camp was unpleasant. I also know this, but I did not know any details.
Q Well, even if you didn't know any details, isn't "unpleasant" putting it a little mildly? Was n't the reputation that violence and physical punishment were used in the camps? Wasn't that the reputation that you meant? Isn't it fair to say that, really? we know. I assumed that mistreatment occurred in individual" cases, out I did not assume that that was the rule. I did now knew that.
Q Didn't you know that violence or physical force was used to enforce the regulations if the internees did not obey them?
A No, I did not know that in this form. I must say that at the time when I was a minister, as odd as it sounds, I was less idsturbed about the inmates of concentration camps than before because while I was a minister I heard from official sources, only good things about the concentration camps. It was said that the food was being improved, and so forth and so on.
Q Only one other question. I was interested in what you said at the and about all of the leaders being responsible for certain general principles, contain great things. Can you state any one of those things? What did you mean by What Principles? Did you mean going on with the war, for instance? or the end of the war, for example. of the war, basic principles for which the leaders were responsible?
JUDGE BIDDLE: Thank you.
21 J une A -LJG- 23-3 Daniels
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant can return to the dock.
THE PRESIDENT: You may as well finish, Dr. Flaechsner.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Yes, gladly. 28th of J anuary, 1944, which was mentioned yesterday. I wish to give it E xhibit Number 31. 11th of March, 1944, to which I give Exhibit Number 32. defendant mentioned yesterday, at page 81 of the English document book, which I submit as Exhibit 33. of Hitler to Speer dated 21 April 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: W ill you give us the date of Exhibit 33? You said page 81. Did you mean page 31 of the original, which is 85 in the English?
DR. FLAECHSNER: No, in the English text, Mr. P resident.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the date of the document?
DR. FLAECHSNER: That was an execution decree for a Fuehrer decree of the 19th of March, 1945.
THE PRESIDENT: That doesn't seen to be right, because page 81 of our cop y is the end-
JUDGE BIDDLE: It is on page 80.
THE PRESIDENT: I s it a decree of March 22, 1945? Is that the thing you mean?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then it is on page 80.
DR. FLAECHSNER: It is the execution decree of the Fuehrer decree.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. FLAECHSNER: The next document, Mr. P resident, is on page 55, and page 52 of the original, the same as the French text. It is a letter of Hitler to Speer regarding entrusting Ministerial Direktur Dorsch with the construction of fighter planes.
I will have to hand in No. 35 later.
As Exhibit No. 36 I submit the interrogatory of Kehrl. It is signed by the witness, Hans Kehrl, and the signature is certified by an officer, and signed by a representative of the Prosecution and by me.
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that--36?
DR. FLAECHSNER: Exhibit 37 is the-
THE PRESIDENT: No, 36. We want the page of it.
DR. FLAECHSNER: Yes, 36 is on page 105 in the original.
On Page 113, Mr. President, of the document book you will find excerpts from the questioning of the witness Schieber, which I submit as exhibit 37. It is handed in, in German and English. The minutes are certified by a member of the Prosecution and by me. the witness Schmelter, which I submit as Exhibit 38. This is certified in the same way. Hupfauer. That will be Exhibit No. 39. of the witness Sauer. I submit this as Exhibit 40. It is in English and German. The English is Certified by the signature of a member of the Prosecution and by tory of Frank, or the record of the examination of Frank, carried out in Ludwig burg by the Prosecution and by me.
THE PRESIDENT: That was 41, was it not?
DR. FLAECHSNER: That was 41, Mr. President. which will be Exhibit 42. This also is in English and in German, and is certified in the usual way. examination of the witness Kempf, carried out on May 3rd at Kransberg by the Prosecution and by me. It is certified in the usual way. It is Exhibit No. 43.
THE PRESIDENT: How many more have you got?
DR. FLAECHSNER: There are two more.
who was questioned at Hersbruck. The record is in English and German, and the English is certified by me and the Prosecution. That is No. 44.
On page 181 of the document book--this will be Exhibit No. 45--the Court will find the testimony of Stahl, also in English and German, the English being certified by the Prosecution and by me. Karl Brandt, which is certified by the camp authorities. It is in English and German.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
DR. FLAECHSNER: That will be 46, and that is all.
Mr. President, yesterday the defendant referred to excerpts of the Fuehrer talk of 3 to 5 January. This document has not yet been translated. With your permission, I shall submit it later. The Prosecution has already seen it and has no objection.
That concludes the documents which I wish to present. The Court does not want a long speech on the documents in the document book, especially since the Russian Prosecution has already presented the documents, and I conclude Mr. Speer's case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. von Luedinghausen, the Tribunal sees that you have a supplementary request for an additional witness, Ambassador Francois Poncet, is that so, and for some additional documents ?
MR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : Yes, Mr. President. May I, especially with reference to the application applying to Francois Poncet, make the following remarks. The Ambassador, Francois Poncet, has in the meantime replied to the subpoena which he has received and I have had his letter two days ago through the French delegation, though only a copy thereof. The French Prosecution, however, have promised me that the original will be put before the Tribunal and they have no objections, just as the British delegation have no objections to Francois Poncet being used.
THE PRESIDENT : The letter being used you mean.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : The letter being used, yes. The calling of the witness and the examination of the witness will, therefore , be superfluous and my corresponding application likewise.
THE PRESIDENT : That seems a convenient course to the Tribunal subject, of course, to any question of relevance in the actual subject matter of the letter. to those or not ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : Yes, in two cases, which, however, I have already crossed off. The two documents which I was going to submit and which have been objected to by the Prosecution have been eliminated by me and they were not being included in my document books.
THE PRESIDENT : On the document before me the Prosecution appear to have objected to three of them. I do not know whether that is true or not.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : Two, 93 and 110 from my document books. They have been objected to and I have dropped them.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes, I beg your pardon, I was wrong. Well then, you have dropped them, that is all right. You may continue, please.
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : Mr. President, may I first of all say that up to now the translations have only been completed for document book number one. That, I think, is already available. The others, however, have not yet been completed. I should nevertheless like to be permitted firt of all to state the numbers of the documents and use them in corresponding questions, giving their numbers, of course, and secondly, possibly to be allowed to quote short passages from them so that the connection may remain intact and will save us from submitting the documents again when the document is translated, which after all would be a superfluous period of time.
THE PRESIDENT : Do you mean to use the documents before you have called the defendant ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : No, in the course of the examination.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes -- then you propose to call the defendant ?
DR. VON LUEDINGHAUSEN : I should like permission to do so.