Do Historians Praise Speer Really Good Nazi?
The 'Good Nazi'?
Many historians such as Alan Bullock praise Speer's performance at the Nuremburg Trials and were convinced that Speer had told the truth. They label Speer an 'apolitical technocrat', 'more concerned with the job he had to do than the power it brought him.'(1) American journalist William Shirer reported on his trial at Nuremburg and came to view him favourably (2), whilst British academic Hugh Trevor-Roper interviewed Speer, and in his book The Last Days of Hitler, describes Speer as the 'penitent Nazi'.(3)
Resistance to Hitler's 'Scorched Earth'
The main reason Speer was treated so leniently by the Nuremburg judges was their belief that he opposed Hitler's 'Scorched Earth Policy'. Speer claimed that he defied Hitler's orders to burn bridges, railways and public utilities, believing that Germany would need them after the war. This defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremburg, …show more content…
The agreement enabled landlords to evict Jews if subsequent accommodation was available. By 1941 there were still 60-70 000 Jews still living in Berlin when the bombing of Berlin escalated. Accommodation was desperately needed for thousands of Germans. The remaining Jews were deported to ghettos and ultimately to execution camps.
Speer's knowledge of the deportation of Jews became an important question raised at the Nuremburg trials. The meeting in which the Berlin Jews deportation was agreed upon was describe in Goebbels' famous diary. Although not present, as Inspector General of Buildings, Speer was represented by Dietrich Clahes, leader of the Resettlement Department. Despite Clahes attendance Speer claimed to have no knowledge of the meeting and its outcome. Although the Nuremburg trials accepted Speer's account, many historians found it difficult to believe that details and knowledge of the meeting would not have been known to
Many historians such as Alan Bullock praise Speer's performance at the Nuremburg Trials and were convinced that Speer had told the truth. They label Speer an 'apolitical technocrat', 'more concerned with the job he had to do than the power it brought him.'(1) American journalist William Shirer reported on his trial at Nuremburg and came to view him favourably (2), whilst British academic Hugh Trevor-Roper interviewed Speer, and in his book The Last Days of Hitler, describes Speer as the 'penitent Nazi'.(3)
Resistance to Hitler's 'Scorched Earth'
The main reason Speer was treated so leniently by the Nuremburg judges was their belief that he opposed Hitler's 'Scorched Earth Policy'. Speer claimed that he defied Hitler's orders to burn bridges, railways and public utilities, believing that Germany would need them after the war. This defiant act of resistance was viewed favourably at Nuremburg, …show more content…
The agreement enabled landlords to evict Jews if subsequent accommodation was available. By 1941 there were still 60-70 000 Jews still living in Berlin when the bombing of Berlin escalated. Accommodation was desperately needed for thousands of Germans. The remaining Jews were deported to ghettos and ultimately to execution camps.
Speer's knowledge of the deportation of Jews became an important question raised at the Nuremburg trials. The meeting in which the Berlin Jews deportation was agreed upon was describe in Goebbels' famous diary. Although not present, as Inspector General of Buildings, Speer was represented by Dietrich Clahes, leader of the Resettlement Department. Despite Clahes attendance Speer claimed to have no knowledge of the meeting and its outcome. Although the Nuremburg trials accepted Speer's account, many historians found it difficult to believe that details and knowledge of the meeting would not have been known to