Speer And Ribbentrop's Analysis

This week’s reading focuses on the trial from Christmas 1945 through February 1946. The reading focused primarily on the two defendants who were extremely opposite in nature; Speer and Ribbentrop as well as what I would call the deterioration of the American prosecutorial team. The other interesting fact is that Hess was still feigning (?) his inability to remember. I disagree with some of the statements made by the author; I believe Hess, will suffering from a form of dementia (hallucinations of greatness), knew that by feigning mental illness, would not suffer the hangman’s noose.
The war in Europe had ended almost eight months prior; the American soldiers (as well as the public) were tired (or interest was waning) of what remained in

Germany. The combat soldiers who had served during the War were leaving and the American prosecution team of lawyers were being replaced too quickly for continuity purposes.
Speer, although considered as Hitler’s architect, inherited the position of running Nazi Germany’s armament industry from February 1942 until the end of the war. With the death of Dr. Todt, Minister of Armaments and War Production in February 1942; Speer suddenly inherited 2.6M laborers in the German armaments industry and in the end controlled the lives of over 12M (German, foreign worker and slave labor). Speer, was a survivor, who quickly realized in the Nuremberg trial that he was as guilty. His association with Fritz Sauckel in obtaining slave labor for the building of industrial complexes such as Nordhausen-Dora, as well as aware of the atrocities of Auschwitz, put him on the same standing as the others for the trial.
Suackel’s defense of “Arbeitseinsatz” served only to condemn him to the gallows. Speer’s remorse, whether true or not, made him the “good Nazi” in the eyes of the court. Speer defied Hitler’s last order of a scorched earth policy because he had the foresight of Germany arising out of the ashes. Unfortunately, Speer was culpable in all every action – he understood the mechanism of the trial and played the jurists against themselves for leniency. Whereas Speer was generally likeable and cordial, Sauckel was portrayed as the monster, without feeling, without remorse. Even facing death, he still presented himself as anti-Semitic and a loyalist to the Nazi ideology.
Ribbentrop, like Hess, quickly dropped out of favor within the party structure.

He is portrayed as whining and a believer in his own importance. Ribbentrop was considered in a far different light by his fellow contemporaries. Ribbentrop was far worldlier than his fellow Nazi’s and obtained his power through his connections with von Papen as well as being the consummate “yes man” for Hitler.
Ribbentrop’s efforts during the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and its secret protocols detailing the various spheres of influence each of the powers would have. Once war began with Russia – Ribbentrop was effectively walled off from the inner circle. With his self-styled importance gone, Ribbentrop suffered in affect a mental breakdown.
As the trial proceeded after the Christmas recess; it was apparent the some of the prosecutors (on the American side) were ill prepared or ill equipped to conduct a prosecutorial form of the trial. Persico made note of Colonel Storey who re-opened the criminal-organizational case against the Gestapo. More importantly, there appears to be a degradation in the separation of the Americans from the ordinary Germans. The “non-fraternization” policy appeared to be aimed at the lower ranking enlisted personnel rather than the American staff. This may have tempered the view of the lawyers who escaped from Nuremberg during the weekends. More importantly was the rapid shift of combat veterans to the draftees who had not experienced the war directly. This rankled

COL Andrus who was a strict disciplinarian and insisted that the prisoners be treated as prisoners. Instead of the cream of the crop, the Constabulary sent soldiers who were in effect awed by the presence of the hard core Nazis imprisoned at Nuremberg.
More importantly which most people would miss was the concept of “points” and leaving for the States. Jackson’s prosecutorial teams were made up of lawyers who were drafted. For the most part they were small town lawyers who were drafted to advise commanders on military justice and/or defend their clients during courts martial proceedings. The majority were never legal scholars, whereas the British brought in their best and brightest. Once a lawyer garnered sufficient points (time in country, medals, time in service and children under the age of 18), he would eligible to catch the next ship home and demobilize at Camp Shelby, MS.
When reading the Nuremberg Interviews, I keep asking myself about Dr. Goldensohn’s interviews, where are the true profiles of the individuals? It is interesting that the book expends an inordinate amount of time with the civilian personnel e.g. Hess, Fritzsche and Kaltenbrunner. Yet, there is insufficient depth to these personnel. Granted in the introduction, Goldensohn did not consider these individuals as patients, but more as a psychological profile of depravity. However, when I read about Ribbentrop, I find an individual who was solely convinced of his greatness in history as well as one of paranoia or a persecution complex. It was clear that he felt used and left behind after the war started.
However, as an Army Officer (Goldensohn) in the 63rd Division, it would appear that he dismisses Jodl, Doenitz and Keitel in their roles during World War II out of hand. This brings to question on how American’s view a professional military; specifically career Army officers regardless of national origin. The United States for the most part has a built-in anxiety to a professional standing Army for most of its history. The Constitution focused more on the State militias which were activated for a crisis, serve its time and disband shortly afterwards. Granted the United States built two service academies, in part to a response to a growing need for engineers (civil and naval). Yet, Germany or more specifically Prussia, was led by almost a hereditary military caste which considered absolute obedience to the State as part of their responsibilities. Their loyalty to the State was paramount to their tenure as career officers. There are few career military families in the United States (i.e. fifth and sixth generations at West Point) that would measure up to the individual’s on the German General Staff. For example, I am the only one in six generations that made the military as a career. For me, I understand these senior German military personnel and their feelings/resentment towards Hitler.
An epiphany occurred to me after reading this week’s assignments regarding Doenitz and the Laconia’s sinking and whether or not the United States had a similar operating procedure. Whether this is to be part of the semester’s final paper or more importantly a Terminal Learning Objective for the class must be considered.
The Nuremberg Trials must be considered in the entire historical perspective of the four member nations (England, France, Russia and the United States) conducting the litigation. The question of the double standard quickly becomes apparent when regarding the Allies own actions in the war as well as their own past history. In short, the conflict was marred by actions that could have been tried by the other side in a similar tribunal setting. This is where the double standard becomes apparent in reviewing history in a whole cloth manner.
For example, the Nuremberg laws were formulated on the exclusion of Jews (as well as others such as the Roma) from full assimilation into society.

Yet, many Southern states had similar laws regarding inter-racial marriage. It has only been in the last several decades that these laws were finally stricken from many Southern state’s legal code (I think Georgia was the last state to nullify inter-racial marriages). The Allied Powers condemned the slaughter of women and children in the various locations in the Baltic States and Russia; yet less than fifty years earlier the United States had the “Sand Creek Massacres” as well as “Wounded Knee.” The United States condemned the wholesale resettlement of Jews into the various ghettos in Poland, but was that any different that the forced resettlement of the American Indian (First Nation) to the various reservations? Where we condemned the forced sterilization of many, was that any different from what many states such as California and Michigan promulgated during the beginning of 20th Century which was continued into the 1970’s? The eugenics programs in the United States served as the model for Germany’s program. While the United States did not conduct experimentation on the scale of Germany and Japans concentration camps; one only has to take a look at the Tuskegee experiments with blacks and syphilis for 40 years and wonders what other experiments have been conducted.
Russia condemned the execution of political commissars, yet

quickly side stepped the issue of the Katlyn Forest massacre of the Polish military and political leaders until the end of the 20th Century. The starvation of millions of Ukrainian farmers during the 1920’s was acceptable because of “political considerations.”
France’s record was less than exemplary when considering the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of slaves who revolted in Haiti (supposedly the use of asphyxiation in specially designed ships using burning Sulphur dioxide supposedly from the research of Claude Ribbe). Frances actions in Viet Nam and Algeria regarding torture and round-ups were considered as necessary to win the war.
As for England and the United States strategic bombing campaign, one can always bring up Dresden as a point of contention regarding civilian losses. The dropping of nuclear weapons in Japan, was it a military necessity or one of a political statement directed towards the Russians? While most Americans consider the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan the reason why Japan surrendered, it was not the primary reason. Instead, Japan feared war with Russia which ultimately led to “Operation August Storm” which ended disastrously for the Japanese.
This week’s section showed an inherent weakness in the trials on the part of the Americans. The Germans believed that some of the individuals would be executed but for the most part they believed that they would be exonerated or serve only short prison terms. The execution of General Yamashita on 26 February 1946, changed their impressions drastically. Goering’s attempted control of the fellow inmates quickly diminished. They then realized that the Four Powers were out for justice and the trial became one of recrimination and accusations to save themselves from the hangman.