Albert Speer's Dichotomy

In studying Albert Speer, one must account for the changing nature of history through introduction of new information and evidence with each new generation of historians and scholars. In Albert Speer’s case, his interpretation originated from his penitence at the Nuremberg Trials and later developed through contradictions made by historians as evidence and information was exposed in regards to the man “who was too deep for his own good”.

At the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, Speer presented a remorseful face to the world, pleading ignorance. This efficiency was rarely questioned, with many believing he increased production by 300% between 1941 and 1944. Early Speer historians endorsed this view. Historians such as Namshar and Joachim Fest authored sympathetic biographies, utilizing Speer as a source of information. Indeed, Speer had made himself readily available for interviews following his release from Spandau in 1966, and even enlisted the help of Fest in the revision and editing of his own memoirs.

However, as time passed, cracks began to appear in Speer’s story, and a historical dichotomy developed. It surfaced that the source of statistics revealing Speers

Sereny claims Speer “looked away” yet how is this approach possible when it is known that Speer was in charge of rail from 1942 onwards, and would hence know of the transportation of the Jewish people to concentration camps? Further incongruities between Sereny’s approach and reality are apparent in the photographic evidence available of Speer with emaciated POWS at both Mauthausen and DORA, apparently, conditions at Mauthausen were too comfortable for Speers liking, yet the conditions at DORA affected the productivity of his workers. This surely cannot be considered “looking