Hitler wanted to exterminate the German race?

[Zardnaar]

Speer probably should have got the death penalty. How genuine after the war was he on repentence?

 

[nonconformist]

Speer probably should have got the death penalty. How genuine after the war was he on repentence?

I think he was alright. He served 20 years in spandau I think, but smggled a book on the Third Reich out. He was after considered the primary source on the Third Reich and Hitler.
Unlike others who at Nuremberg feigned religion (I can't remember who did this), Speer was the only guy who really admitted the blame, rather than absolving it.

 

[privatehudson]

He was the only defendant to plead guilty to the charges, but there's still some debate as to how genuine his repentance was, or if it was merely to save his own skin. As the former Arnaments Minister I wouldn't be suprised if he'd have got the death penalty had he tried the alternative.

 

[YNCS]

Dan van der Vat wrote a book The Good Nazi: The Life & Lies of Albert Speer. This is a good biography of the self-described "second man in the Reich." Albert Speer has long occupied a singular niche in history: that of the "good Nazi," a decent and civilized man whose first love was architecture and who wished nothing more than to rebuild Germany from the misery of WWI and the worldwide depression of the 1930s. He skillfully cultivated this image until his death in 1981. Speer willingly conceded a general responsibility for his role in the Reich, and even admitted in the '70s that he had some inkling of what was happening to the Jews, but he never admitted personal responsibility for the Holocaust or the war. Van der Vat begins with a vexing question: If Speer was Hitler's right-hand man, how could he possibly claim ignorance of the genocide that was (in the words of the author) "the driving force" of the regime? Considering Speer's responsibilities heading the ministry of armaments during the war--one highly dependent on slave labor--his claims of ignorance are hard to believe. Yet many did believe him. Gitta Sereny, in Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth, seems to accept his remorse as genuine, and she finds her subject sympathetic. No less an authority than Simon Wiesenthal also believed Speer. The highly respected German biographer of Hitler, Joachim Fest, and the social psychologist Erich Fromm concurred. Van der Vat is immune to Speer's charms, even after having interviewed the Nazi in 1976. Beginning with a serious study of Speer as architect, van der Vat proceeds to examine his role as minister of armaments. In that capacity, Speer was personally responsible for the evacuation of 75,000 German Jews as forced labor. Van der Vat shows that Speer not only knew of the Holocaust, he took advantage of it.

 

[Adler17]

PH; first of all I misread the quotation you gave. Nevertheless Dönitz was in no way in charge of the workers. That was Speer. Dönitz was not responsible for this. And sabotage was also a violation of criminal law in other states...
The rule nulla poena sine lege is the basic rule of criminal law since the Romans. Otherwise someone could shoot you for the "crime" lying in a bed last night, a crime he has just defined. This rule is so fundamental that all actions against that are (in a naturalistic point of view) non existing in the eyes of the law.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

Nevertheless Dönitz was in no way in charge of the workers. That was Speer. Dönitz was not responsible for this.

He was though reccomending their use, so the fact that he wasn't in charge of the workers is rather irrelevant.

And sabotage was also a violation of criminal law in other states...

Many other states don't massacre civilians in retaliation for it though.

The rule nulla poena sine lege is the basic rule of criminal law since the Romans

I know what your saying but frankly don't care. The fact of the matter is that if the allies accepted this as fact they would have been forced to let the entire heads of the 3rd Reich escape the justice they deserved simply because no-one had yet thought to make slave labour and genocide a crime. So no, I don't care that there was no law against it then, the actions of many in the third reich blatantly deserved punishment, so your comparison is ridiculous.

 

[Reno]

What is the use of slave labour if not a crime against humanity?

He was not the one who started that policy, the slave labour in industries and elsewhere were under Speers controll.

 

[privatehudson]

He was not the one who started that policy, the slave labour in industries and elsewhere were under Speers controll.

With it would seem the approval of Doenitz later on. I wouldn't say it mattered who started it if Doenitz agreed with it.

 

[Reno]

With it would seem the approval of Doenitz later on.

I don't think Dönitz was in power long enough to even fully adress the issue.

 

[privatehudson]

That memorandum dates back to 1944 when he reccomended the use of slave labour from concentration camps in shipyards. He didn't have to be in total power to be in favour of it, and if he was against the idea it would be reasonable to assume he wouldn't be suggesting it.

 

[Adler17]

PH, nearly everything the Nazis did concerning Holocaust and other evil things, were forbidden to German law. So there was in no way a need to break that rule- with one exception: the starting of an agressive war. You have to keep the rules of a law state or you are not better than dictators and other extremists. Otherwise you can be punished for something which is not forbidden! This rule IS the very basic rule for civilized criminal law.
Dönitz demanding of more workers were made to Speer. He was in charge of the slave worker, not Dönitz. Speer was the man who organized the production of war materials, also in the yards. So it is very relevant for a criminal action if Dönitz was in charge or Speer. You can only blame someone for the actions he did. Dönitz demanded workers from other production sites. So even an incitement is not able to be seen here. Dönitz was never in charge of the worker so he can´t be blamed for that.
Nevertheless I think we can argue here for hours and weeks and don´t come further. You should perhaps read some material about criminal law and law philosophy before continuing this discurs.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

He's not just asking for more workers, he's specifically asking for more slave labour from concentration camps, and to me there's a large difference. It also shows that Doenitz may to some degree have known about the camps. In my opinion to reccomend or support the use of slave labour is a crime that would justify such a sentence, so I'm not accepting the whole "my superior is to blame" excuse you forward because it just doesn't wash.

 

[nonconformist]

It does, of course depend whether Doenitz asked specifically asked for conentration camp labour, or extermination camp labour.

 

[privatehudson]

I don't see why it would make much difference to if it was slave labour or not.

 

[nonconformist]

My point is based on whether Doenitz was aware or not of the Final Solution.

 

[privatehudson]

Oh he was obviously aware of it, it depends on when he became aware of it. I'd still throw any man in jail for 10 years without any sorrow just for the support of slave labour and retaliation crimes though.

As I said, I don't hold with the "My superior was to blame/that wasn't my area of authority" excuse that many tried to use at Nuremburg.

 

[Hamlet]

Hamlet, Dönitz indeed banned the NSDAP, however the orders were not executed because of the lack of time and the neccessarity of keeping the offices working whereever possible. Keep in mind that the allies let the local officials working for the first time.

Not according to Ian Kershaw. Have you got a source for this?

 

[Adler17]

@ Hamlet: Ian Kershaw is a goot source. I have to reread mines and for that I don´t have much time. Nevertheless WHAT I know exactly is that he banned the Nazi emblems and did reintroduce the old German flag. However this I read in an article a few years ago about these last years. I doubt there are many sources about that...

@ PH: The existance of KZ was commonly known to all. But what was going on in that not. Many Germans did not know what was going on there. I know a story of a German who heard BBC and the only broadcast about the Holocaust. He thought it was the worst kind of Propaganda he ever heard. Although he was an enemy of Hitler he could not believe that. However he did some researches on that topic. He needed over a year (!) to get the proof. He did intensive but secret researches. So if he needed a year a Grand admiral doing the same would have had lesser possibilities because of being supervised and his own work. To know the existance of that camps is not equal to know what was going on there.

Adler

 

[privatehudson]

To know the existance of that camps is not equal to know what was going on there.

I find it very hard to believe that someone with Doenitz's power would have thought they were holiday camps. He would have known something, and if he didn't he obviously didn't care to find out.

 

[Adler17]

Well, he had power but that was a very, well, delicate topic. It was secret what was going on and if he tried to find something out he had to be very carefully much more than any other normal German perhaps. He would have risked his life- if he had doubts on the saying these KZ were "only" a kind of prison. But did he have the time to get doubts? I mean he was in charge of the German Navy away from the dirt of the Russian campaign- where he could have got doubts. But hardly in his position. So this was no real proof. So the only fact we have concerning his knowledge of the Holocaust was his advice on the presecution offices to investigate in the KZs- an advice that hardly was possible to execute since all KZs were in allied held territory in that time.

Adler