Based on this expectation General Thomas thought to see, in the person of Speer, the man appointed by Hitler who would be decisive for all economic questions. In the file note of General Thomas, which confined itself merely to generalities, it is a matter of an expression of opinion which was not justified by the actual state of affairs. It offer no basis for the reply to the question as to how the responsibility for the policy of the commitment of labor objected to by the Prosecution can be distributed.
In summarizing it must be stated to this count of the indictment: of foreign labor, nor for its removal to Germany. He is at the most responsible for the utilization of part of this labor in Germany. defendant had employed prisoners of war in the economic sector which was under his direction, and that he had thereby violated Article 32 of the Geneva Convention of 1929 regarding the treatment of prisoners of War used in plants under his control. This, however, cannot be regarded simply as a violation against Article 31 of the previously mentioned agreement. The expression "armament economy" and/or "armament plant" does not have the same meaning as "plant" and/or "economy", whose task is the manufacture of arms and direct war requirements.
The term "armament plant" can only be understood from its development When, at the beginning of rearmament, the limitation of raw materials began plants which were working for rearmament were given preference in obtaining raw materials. These plants were subordinated to the armament inspections established by the Wehrmacht, and were called "armament plants." In addition to all other plants, these which served the manufacture of iron, steel and metals, as well as these plants which manufactured machine-boilers and vehicles and appliances -- also the entire manufacture of raw steel and the first stage of preparation (foundries, rolling works, forges) -- as well as the whole remaining subsidiary supply industry, were included in it. So, for example, electro-technical plants, plants which produced optical products, plants which manufactured ball-bearings, cog-wheels, etc. This is shown by the testimony of the witness Schieber. (Exhibit No. 37, Question 9, Document Book page 114).Approximately 30-35% only of the whole iron production was used for the production of armament to the extent as previously described, and 60% for the maintenance of production or for other consumers -- Reich Railroads.
construction of merchant vessels, agricultural machine, export goods, appliances for the chemical industry, etc. We refer to the testimony of the witness Kehrl, which has been submitted under Speer Exhibit No. 36, and particularly, to his answer to question 5. the manufacture of raw steel and the stages of manufacture, it can be safely presumed that of all the plants which were combined in the armament inspections, only approximately 20-30% manufactured armament products within the meaning of the Geneva Convention. The details had to be treated individually, in order to a in an idea as to what extent article 31 of the Geneva Convention could be violated by the employment of prisoners of war. statistician Duess under No. 2520-PS, in order to prove thereby how many prisoners of war and foreign workers were employed in the armament industry The compilation, which is principally supported by numbers taken from the documents, in the possession of the defendant Speer, do not, however, state in which branches of the armament industry the individual prisoners of war worked. A big enterprise, which, because it falls under one of the abovelisted categories, and as a result thereof was considered an armament plant in its entirety, needs only to manufacture a fraction or perhaps no weapons or equipment which stand in direct relationship to war activities. If prisoners of war were employed in it, then this occupation does not represen a violation of Article 31 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. Such a plant, however, appears collectively in Duess' Affidavit. The Affidavit thereby loses its value as evidence as to if and to what extent the Article 31 of the Geneva Convention was violated by the employment of prisoners of war in armament. employment of French civilian workers who had been released from, prisoners of war confinement and who were employed in the armament industry was also to be considered a violation against Article 31.
This is not applicable.
Beginning with the time of their release, the former prisoners of war were free people, unlimited in their freedom of movement, and limited only by the obligations embodied in the contract of employment. In addition to this, no French prisoners of war could be forced to agree to his release with the obligation to make his labor available to German industry. It was his free decision if he preferred to accept his release as a prisoner of war under these conditions. From that moment on he was no longer a soldier, no longer subject to military discipline; he received his working wages like every free worker, and was not subjected to any camp discipline or and other similar circumscribing regulations. release under these circumstances, these advantages apparently appeared more valuable than the protection which they enjoyed as prisoners-of-war. If they did this then their occupation, even in work which in itself is prohibited for prisoners of war in accordance with Article 31, cannot be considered a violation of this Article. is holding them prisoner is not prohibited by the Geneva Prisoner-of-War Convention. Only that work is prohibited which is directly connected with military operations, for example, the use of prisoners of war for fortification works for a combat unit. The defendant Speer cannot be accused of anything of that kind. The manufacture and transport of weapons of all kinds, as well as transportation of war material for the combat units. In the armament economy, under the control of the defendant Speer, the only thing which could be considered as a viola of the aforementioned rule is the manufacture of weapons and ammunition of all kinds. Such a violation however, has so far not been proved by the Prosecution at all. to plants took place. According to the testimony of the defendant Sauckel, this was done by the War Economy officers with the Military District Commanders submitting the number of prisoners of war available for week to the District Employment Office, and the transfer of the prisoners of war to the plants when took place in the same manner as with usual labor. A different only existed in that the camp officers -- the prisoners-of-war were billeted in so-called enlisted men's camps (Stammlager) -- were responsible that the directives issued by the OKW for the employment and the treatment of prisoners of war were coin plied with.
It was the responsibility of these camp-officers, that, in the employment of prisoners of war, a violation of Article 31 of the Prisoners of war Convention was rendered impossible. The Commitment Officers (Einsatzoffiziere) appointed by the camp commanders had constantly to control and examine the working conditions and the kind of occupation of prisoners of war in armament plants, and they had to watch and see that no prohibited work was imposed on the prisoners of war. The defendant Keitel has given an exact description of the manner and procedure in which the control of prisoners of war in the home area was exercised. Documents have also been submitted which give information about the treatment of prisoners of war. examined by Camp Commitment Officers to see that the employment of prisoners of war was in accordance with article 31 and 32 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention. As for as French prisoners of war were concerned, a special competence existed in the person of Ambassador Scapini, who had to forward any probable complaints against the use of prisoners of war labor in violation of international law to the OKW. gated, and if they were found to be justified, improvements were made. It is of course, possible that in such a large organization as the large number of French prisoners of war made necessary, mistakes would occur occasionally. Measures for the correction of mistakes of this kind, are, after all, provided by the Geneva Prisoners of war Convention itself in its regulations. These regulations were also effective in the last war. The representatives of the Protecting Powers have intervened against bad conditions, which had been brought to their attention on the basis of complaints, and they have also demanded and achieved their abolition. If such mistakes were recognized and reported, they were then immediately remedied. It would be incorrect to try to conclude a premeditated system from individual occurrences. The protection of prisoners of war, which they found in the Labor Commitment officer even laid defendant Speer open to criticism by individual plant directors as being too extensive.
pect are concerned, it must be first examined, if the employment of prisoner of war in the armament industry is to be fundamentally regarded as a violation of the rules of international law. After the previously -mentioned statements regarding the character of the plants which were combined in the armament industry, this must be answered in the negative. Only in so far as prisoners of war were actually employed on the production of arms and on the production of immediate war materials could be speak of a violation of Article 31. That this regulation may have been violated in individual cases will not be denied by us. If, for example, the photographs submitted by the American Prosecution show that near the front lines prisoners of war were used to unload munition-trains, then this doubtlessly represents a violation of the regulations of Article 31. The defendant Speer, however, cannot be accused of such incidents, as they do not fall under his competence. To conclude a violation of the regulations of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention on a large scale, that the employment of prisoners of war in the armament industry did take place, is not applicable.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours).
(The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours.)
M. LANOIRE: Mr. President, I would request the authorization of the Tribunal to make a very short statement in the name of the French Prosecution. Even though it is not the custom that the Prosecution should not intervene in the course of the discussion, the counsel for Speer gave a few opinions which it seer, is to no I must underline, and also request the Tribunal to put them aside THE PRESIDENT:
The Tribunal does not think it is appropriate that the speeches of the defendants' counsel should be interrupted by counsel for the Prosecution. Counsel for the Prosecution are going to speak afterwards, and they will then have a full opportunity of answering the speeches that have been made on behalf of the defendants.
M. LANOIRE: Certainly, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Flaechsner, if you will wait one moment, I have an announcement to make. The Tribunal refers to its order of 23 February 1946, Paragraph 8 of that order, which is on the subject of the statements which the defendants may make, under Article 24 of the Charter. their counsel, the Tribunal assume that if it is the defendants' desire to make any further statements, it will be only to deal with matters previously omitted. The defendants will not be permitted to make farther speeches or to repeat what has already been said by themselves or their counsel, but will be limited to short statements of a few minutes each to cover matters not already covered by their testimony or the arguments of counsel.
DR. FLAECHSNER: A further reproach of the Prosecution refers to the violation of Art. 32 of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement, according to which prisoners of war were employed in unhealthy work, in so far as prisoners of war had been employed in mines. For this a reference is made to the minutes of a Central Planning meeting where the employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is discussed. The employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is not to be considered as forbidden in itself, and it has been practised in all industrial nations. The employment of Russian prisoners of war in mines is, therefore, not to be objected to, in so far as the prisoners concerned were in a physical condition that enabled then to do heavy mining work.
It has not been established and proved by the Prosecution, that these prisoners of war were not physically fit for the work given from. From the fact, that the employment of prisoners of war in mines was discussed and approved, it cannot be concluded that At. 32 of the Prisoners of War Agreement was violated. The treatment of prisoners of war has to be examined legally from various points of view. The German Government has taken the point of view, that Soviet prisoners of war should be treated on a different legal basis than the subjects of the Western States, who were all parties to the treaty of the Geneva Prisoners of War Convention of 1929, whereas the Soviet Union had not signed this agreement. The Soviet Prosecution has presented Document EC 338/USSR 356, an investigation according to international law of the Foreign Counterintelligence Office (Amtes Ausland/Abwehr) in the High Command of the Wehrmacht, concerning the locality of the regulations issued on the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war, and levelled sharp criticism at the latter. The essential point is that in this report the view is oppressed, that as a matter of fundamental principle, Soviet prisoner of war cannot be treated according to the rules of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement, because the Soviet Union did not participate in this, and that this report refers to the decree of the Soviet Union of 1 July 1941 concerning the treatment of prisoners of war, concerning which the opinion of the High Command of the Wehrmacht, Foreign Counter-Intelligence, establishes that on essential points it agrees with the rules of the Geneva Prisoners of War Agreement. It is, however, characteristic that in this decree it is ordered that non-commissioned officers and enlisted men taken prisoners of war may be put to work for industry and agriculture inside the camp or outside, and that the only restriction is that the use of prisoner of war labor is forbidden; (a) in the combat area, (b) for personal needs of the administration as well as the needs of other prisoners of war.
(So-called "orderly service; see page 12/13 of the Doc. Book). An order restricting the use of prisoner of war labor according; to Art. 31 and 32 of the GenevaPrisoner of War Agreement is not to be understood from the above-mentioned command. It now remains to investigate whether the stipulations of Art. 31 and 32 of the Geneva prisoner of War Agreement flow from general rules of International Law, which should be observed, even if there were no special ruling by treaty, such as the Geneva Prisoner-of-War agreement represents. This cannot generally be affirmed. The above-mentioned treaty regulations cannot be regarded as the prescription by treaty of a generally valid legal concept, if so important a member of the family of International Law as the Soviet Union does not accept a ruling of this sort. Proceeding from this idea, the employment of Soviet Prisoners-of-war in work forbidden by Art.31 of the POW Agreement is not to be objected to. The Italian military persons Interned in Germany after Italy's fall do not come under the regulations of the GenevaPrisoner-of-war agreement since no state of war existed between Germany and Italy. Moreover, these military internees did not come under the restrictions of Art. 31 in their employment as manpower. It must, however, be pointed out that these military internees are comprised in the enumeration by Mr. Deuss, of Prisoners-of-war occupied in the armament industry. exclusively through the offices of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. The control of the proper allocation in accordance with the Prisoner-ofWar agreement depended on the Labor Commitment Officer of the Stalag, who in return was himself finally responsible to the General for Prisoner-of-War matters at the Army High Command. It was not possible for the defendant Speer to have any influence on the distribution of prisoners-of-war and their occupation. The prosecution has not been in a position to bring any proof from which the participation of the defendant Speer to unlawful occupation of prisoner of war might be deduced. These assertions of the Prosecution have remained unproved.
that the Todt Organization, at the head of which Speer was placed in February 1942 after Dr. Todt's death, had used native workers to build fortifications in the French coastal areas. As far as the Todt Organization is concerned, it is a purely civilian institution of the General Construction Inspector for road maintenance. It worked on a private economical basis, that is, it gave out the construction work that it intended to carry out to private firms, also to foreign firms, which were established, in the respective countries, and merely supervised the execution of the constructions. The private firms could undertake the procurement of the necessary materials and labor themselves. For the very reason that native construction enterprises were used, it was possible to eliminate the difficulties which other/rise would have opposed themselves to the execution of the work. The workyards of the Todt Organization enjoyed a certain favor with the natives because the workmen had the assurance that they could not be compelled to go to Germany to work in industry there because these places of construction of the organization Todt were considered as urgently important. The workers went voluntarily to the firms which were active for the Todt Organization to obtain this security. The example quoted by the defendant Speer during cross-examination of 50,000 Todt Organization workers who were once taken from France to Germany to repair damages caused to two West German valley dams by air attacks, made such a bad impression on the workers employed in other Todt Organization construction sites that nothing else left to do but to send these 50,000 workers back to France. In the meantime, many workmen of the Todt Organization construction sites in France disappeared, because they feared to be taken to Germany sooner or later against their will, while up to them they had regarded employment in enterprises which worked for the Todt Organization as insurance against an eventual transfer to Germany. Only the return of the above mentioned 50,000 workers to France, which was brought about Try the defendant Speer when these unfavourable consequences developed, restored the hitherto existing state of confidence. Here also the reason should be emphasized that the fact results from the event described that the Todt Organization workers were free to go where they wished in France in any case, that no coercion was used against them.
The consequences of this was that when the protected plaits (Sperrbetriebe) were established in France, all enterprises working for the Todt Organization were declared protected plants and therewith removed from the possibility of being employed on other work. This instance shows that the view of the Prosecution that the workers of the Todt Organization were forced into the Todt Organization plants against their will is a wrong interpretation. French workers in construction sites under administration of the Todt Organization, as well as in any other armament industries in Germany and occupied territories, every illegality is excluded. It should not be left unmentioned here, that after the conclusion of the Armistice Agreement with France the latter had no more part in military hostilities. The Armistice Treaty certainly did not mean an agreement for a truce but de facto, a final stepping of hostilities, and was to sorry as a preparation for the conclusion of peace. It was a situation, which no longer signified war, but also did not yet mean the definite return to peacetime conditions regulated by treaty. A resumption of hostilities was, however, according to both partners to the Armistice, completely out of the question. The armistice was to regulate exclusively the situation until the definite conclusion of peace. Proscriptions of the Hague Convention, as well as of the Prisoner-of-War Agreement concerning the restriction that performance of services cannot be allowed to violate the loyalty towards one's own country which is still fighting, do not apply because the country is no longer at war. After a general armistice, the production of arms and munitions can no longer be directed against the party which has retired from hostilities, but only against other partners still in the field. The aforementioned principle of respecting the duty of faithfulness to one's own country can in such a case no more be applied. a para-military organization as has been falsely asserted. Apparently this false assumption has been strengthened by the fact that the German members of the administration of the Organization Todt abroad wore a uniform. These people were considered as Wehrmacht followers, but on the other hand the labor engaged by the firms and the construction workers of the firms as well as the technical personnel were in no such relation. The reproach cannot be made, therefore, that these native workers were indirectly incorporated into a Wehrmacht organization.
prisoners from concentration camps were employed in the economic sector controlled by him. The defendant admitted this. A penal responsibility because of this fact does not, however, stand the test of a legal verification. The employment of convicts for work of an economic nature has always been a practice in Germany. It could be carried out in various ways, partly by employment within the conviction prison itself, partly outside. Owing to the lack of labor due to the aggravation of the economic war, it was necessary to draw upon the labor available in the concentration camps. trouble the offices subordinate to the Reich Minister Himmler took to use the reserves of labor contained in the concentration camps for the construction of their own SS plants, and the defendant Speer has supplied information during his hearing before the Court on 20/21 June regarding the efforts of Himmler tending towards building up a separate armament industry of his own, and subordinate to him only; which would have had the result that any control over the production of arms in these intended SS plants would have become impossible, so that the SS could have provided themselves with weapons without the Army or any other offices being able to control them. The defendant Speer successfully fought against this. It was agreed that Himmler would release a part of the inmates of the concentration camps to be employed in the armament industry. Hereby the inmates of the concentration camps gained an improvement of their situation, since in the first place they obtained the higher food rations provided for workmen or for these doing long shifts or heavy work, as has been attested by witness Ricke; moreover, they left the large concentration camps, and were no more under SS control during working hours, but in the plants they were subject to the control of foremen and skilled workmen appointed by the plants. camps were erected near the plants or working places where they were employed, and these were not accessible to the control of the plant managers nor to the control of the offices of the defendant Speer, but stood exclusively under the control of the offices in charge of the administration of the concentration camps. For the conditions prevailing in such camps neither the plant manager nor the offices of the defendant Speer can be held responsible if abuses occurred there.
In General, as attested by the letter of the department chief Schieber of 7 May 1944 to the defendant Speer (doc. book II, page 88), the inmates preferred work in such plants to an occupation given by the administration of the concentration camp itself. And Schieber quite clearly states in his letter that for these reasons more room should be given to the employment of concentration camp inmates in order to improve their lot. But he further states that the number of concentration camp inmates employed in the armament industry amounted to 36,000 and that this figure was decreasing. Against this the defendant's assertion at his interrogation that the total number of concentration camp workers employed in the armament industry amounted to 1% of the total number of workmen employed in the whole armament industry, is calculated too high.
Of 49 million workmen engaged in the final processing of armaments, the figure of 36,000 represents only 7 per thousand.
The number of concentration camp inmates employed in the armament industry represents a very small part of the total labor employed in the final processing of armaments, that is of the total labor employed in the plants manufacturing finished products. is, that the employment of such prisoners in the armament industry had resulted in an increased demand for ouch labor and that this increased demand was satisfied by the sending into concentration camps of persons who under normal conditions would never have come there. The opinion that the fact of the employment of prisoners from concentration camps in the armament industry led to an increase in the number of concentration camps inmates is disproved by the already mentioned letter of Scheiber (Ex. No.6, page 88) and by his testimony. Also submitted is Ex. No. 37, doc 51. According to this, the employment of concentration camp inmated in the armament industry occurred for the first time in the autumn of 1943, and the number of prisoners employed there reached its peak with the mximum figure of 36,000 in Mar oh 1944 and from that time on act only did not increase, but on the contrary decreased. The conclusions of the Prosecution in no way bear examination. Not even the proof has been brought forward that Speer had attempted to have people sent to the concentration camps. Germany people were afraid of being sent to a concentration camp. This dread, in the population, of concentration camps was quite justified, for it depended only on the judgement of the police authorities, led by Himmler, whether a person was sent to a concentration camp or not. further, because there was no legal authority which might have made it possible to check the charges resulting in transfer to a concentration camp, and finally, and this is the main reason, becuase it lay entirely within the discretion of the concentration camp authorities to decide for how long one was to be sent to a concentration camp. centration camp inmates in industry after he had obtained knowledge of conditions prevailing in the Mauthausen camp from a visit he made there.
That this was not the case is proved by the evidence of the defendant on this point. As it was only a hurried visit, the purpose of which was merely to instruct the camp administration to desist from tasks, undertaken in defiance of the prohibition which served purely peacetime purposes and instead of this to place labor at the disposal of the armament industry, the defendant Speer could only obtainaa superficial impression of the living consitions in the camp. Up to this point, his evidence may be referred to. has been made to the fact that during such visits to concentration campss by personalities of high standing, the camps were shown from the best side only, and that any signs of atrocities to were carefully removed so that the visitor should not get a bad impression of the camp (cf. statement of witness Blaha on 1 January 1946). proach of the Prosecution, which asserts that Speer had approved of the use of Hungarian Jews as labor for the construction of the bomb-proof airplane factores orderd by Hitler. In respect to this, reference must be made to the evidence of the witness Milch and that of the witness Franck. Milch stated that Speer, who was ill at the time, strongly opposed these constructions, but that Hitler, who demanded the undertaking of the work, gave the commission directly to Dorsch, the loader of the Organization Todt, to carry then out. So that the controversy between Hitler and Speer should not become known to outsiders, Dorsch officially remained subordinate to Speer, but in this matter he had to deal directly with Hitler alone, and was immediately subordinate to him. In his evidence Milch further stated that these building intentions were never actually carried out. I have submitted Hitler's order to Speer of 21 April 1944 as Ex. No. 34, page in my document book. This order clearly shows that Hitler shows Dorsch as being directly responsible to him, since the appointment of Speer, who was given the duty of adjusting these building tasks to the building plans under him, was of a purely formal nature. The evidence given by Field Marshal Milch is thus confirmed by this letter.
To support the opinion of the Prosecution that the defendant Speer had contributed to sending people concentration camps, a statement is quoted which was made by Speer at a sitting of the Central Planning Board of 10 October 1942, on the question of shirkers.
In this connection, one must look at the evidence of the defendant Speer in the witness box, in which he declared that upon this statement no steps to step this eveil were taken either by the Central Planning Board nor by himself with the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment. Effectively nothing was done about it. It was only in November 1943 that Sauckel issued a decree against shirkers. The term "shirker" is applied to these workers, who, in order to evade the fulfillment of their working obligations, simulate illness or stay away from work under the pretext of reasons that do not stand the test or even without any reason, at all. neglect even this question. Efforts were made in every imaginable way to undermine the willingness to work of the working people. By dropping leaflets and through other channels of information, advice was given to the workers as to how they could report sick; what means they were to use in order to succeed in fiegning illness at medical laminations; they were invited to work slowly etc. At first this propaganda succeeded only in isolated cases. As, however, such isolated cases very easily have unfaboorable influence on the working discipline of the personnel as a whole, the defendant Speer discussed the possibility of police intervention. Speer did notk however, take any intiative of any kind which would have led to practical action on the part of the police. It was not until a year later that a decree was issued by the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, first making it an obligation for the employer to use disciplinary penalties; in particularly grave cases, the trustees of production could ask for court punishment. Based on this decree sentences could be pronounced providing for transfer to a worker's training camp for a term of 56 days. Only in exceptionally grave cases of infractions of the working law did the decree of the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment provide for transfer to a concentration camp.
It must be here mentioned that this decree was applicable both to national and foreign workers in the same way, for in no case were national workers to be treated differently.
In the cross-examination of defendant Sauckel. the French Prosecution produced the document about a sitting of Sauckel's labor authorities at the Wartburg. At this sitting Dr. Sturm, the specialist on questions of labor law at the General Plenipotentiary for Labor Commitment, gave a lecture on the punishment of workmen, and it was therby established that only an infinitisimal percentage of workers had to be sentenced to penal punishment. ward no proof for the assertion that, as a consequence of Saukel's decree, concerning shirkers, the concentration camps had been filled up; so that conclusive proof is lacking that Sauckel, or respectively, the defendant Speer, contributed by any measures they took to the filling of concentration camps. (P.49 in my document book, USA Ex. 179), Speer pointed out that the escaped prisoners of war who were apprehended by the police had to be brought straight back to their work. From this remark we see the basic attitude of the defendant Speer, who did not want to see the escaped prisoners of war thrown into concentration camps but demanded that they be immediately incorporated into industry. So far the Prosecution has not been able to bring forward any proof that will stand the test for the assertion that Speer had the concentration camps filled in order to obtain labor from then.
Mr. President, perhaps now I may go into the question which you asked no at the beginning of my plea as to how I interpret paragraph 6-A of the Statute in regard to the defendant Speer, especially in regard to the terminology: "The waging of a war of aggression." I should like to say the following: The Charter, under 6-A, Cites, among other punishable actions, the execution of a war of aggression. As for the definition of a war of aggression, I need say nothing here. Professor Jarries has already done that in detail. Here it is only the term "the execution of a war of aggression" that is in question. My point of view is that a war of aggression can be waged only by the person in command. All others are only led, which makes a considerable difference in their participation in the war.
a war of aggression can not be applied. I should like to point out the following as well: In a session on about the 28th of February or the 1st of March, one of the judges told Justice Jackson that the prosecution had represented the point of view that the charge of a war of aggression was concluded with its outbreak. I can only share this opinion. the activities of the defendant Speer during the last phases of the war from June 1944. I can, therefore, confine myself to proving now in regard to this detailed chronological description that the entire testimony of Speer is covered almost in its entirety by testimonies of other witnesses and by documents. The written depositions of witnesses, which I refrained from reading before the court, run along entirely the same lines, although the witnesses came from different camps and expressed themselves in a completely unbaised manner. Hitler on the situation of his armament production, aid pointed out vigorously at the same time that the war would be lost if such decline of production were allowed to continue. This is proved by the memorandums of Speer to Hitler submitted as Speer Exhibit Nos. 14, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24. As stated by the witness General Guderian, Chief of the General Staff of the army, (compare Question 6, page 179 of my document book Speer) Hitler defined, since the end of January 1945, any such information as high treason and subjected it to corresponding punishment. Nevertheless, as it appears also from the deposition of Guderian, (Question 9, page 179, v. Poser, question 22, page 11), Speer stated clearly time and again to Hitler as well as to Guderian his opinion about the prospects of the war. situation of the war. Notwithstanding this, Speer informed, after the severest orders of destruction had been issued by Hitler, the Gauleiters and the Commander-in-Chief of various army groups that the war was lost and thus achieved that Hitler's policy of destruction was at least partly prevented.
This is evident from the testimonies of witnesses Huppfauer, Kempf and von Poser.
Hitler declared to Speer on 29.3.45 that the latter would have to take the consequences customary in such cases, if he continued to declare that the war was lost. This conversation is contained in the testimony of the witness Kempf. In spite of it Speer travelled already 2 days afterwards to SeyssInquart (on 1 April 1945) in order to explain also to him that the war was lost. The witness Seyss-Inquart and the witness Schwebel Interrogation 11 June 1946, and interrogation 14 June 1946, page 11482 of the German minutes stated here unanimously that this conversation with Speer of 1 April 45 occasioned the conferences of Seyss-Inquart with the Chief of the General Staff of General Eisenhower, General Smith. This led finally to the handing over of undestroyed Holland to the Allies. On 24 April 1945 Speer flew once again to Berlin which was already besieged in order to persuade Hitler that this sensless battle should be given up, as is evident from the testimony of the witness Poser. In his last will Hitler dismissed Speer on 29 April 45. obliged to confirm to the defendant Speer during his cross-examination, that he evidently was the only man who told Hitler the whole truth. destructions of industries took place in Poland, the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, France, Belgium, Holland were destroyed during the German retreat. the destruction of the industries of these countries ordered by Hitler, partly even through a false interpretation of existing orders. That Speer was convinced as early as in summer 1944 that these destructions should be prevented in the general European interest, is evident from the testimony of the witness von Poser. It would have been easy, by relevant execution of the orders, to cripple completely the industries of high standing of Central Europe and of the occupied Western European countries for 2-3 years and with it the entire industrial production and civilized life of these peoples, in fact to make rebuilding by own force quite impossible for years to come June of this year, that the prepared destruction of only 14 points in Holland would have absolutely destroyed the basis of existence of this country.
The destruction of all power plants in these countries would have produced a similar effect as in 1941 the destruction by the Soviets of 2 - 3 power plants in the Donetz territory had shown. It was not until 1943 that production there could start again. Similar and still further reaching consequences had to be expected from the carrying out of Hitler's orders on the European continent. gave the authorization to undertake no destructions, as is confirmed by the witnesses von Poser, Kempf, Schieber, Kehrl, Rohland, Seyss-Inquart, Hirschfold and by Speer document 16. Kehrl for the Balkans, Schieber for UpperItaly; Rohland for Luxemburg and Lorraine; Kempf for the Balkans, Czechoslovakia, Polish-Upper-Silesia, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg; SeyssInquart for Holland, 11 June 1946, Hirschfeld for Holland; Poser for France, Belgium, Czecho-Slovakia, Upper-Italy, Hungary, the Balkans, Poland. successor to Hitler, he submitted to him orders prohibiting any destruction in the still occupied territories of Norway, Czecho-Slovakia and Holland, as well as Wehrwolf activities, as is shown in the testimony of the witnesses von Poser and Kempf. for industries in the occupied territories, he had to accomplish this task at his own responsibility and through his agencies within the borders of the socalled Greater German Reich. He had to keep especially busy in this connection in order to obstruct the total destruction of all real values which was obstinately demanded by Hitler. Information on this will for destruction on the part of Hitler and many of his Gauleiters is furnished in the testimonies of witnesses Guderian, Rohland, Hupfauer, von Poser, Stahl and Kempf. Hitler of 29 March 45 submitted as Speer Exhibit No. 24, in which Speer repeat again Hitler's remarks during the conversation on 18 March 1945. This document shows clearly that Hitler had made up his mind to destroy completely the foundations of the life of the German people.