Albert Speer - Differing Historical Interpretations :: essays research papers

They are many factors influencing the different historical descriptions of Albert Speer. The most(prenominal) influential was Speers take character construction of himself in his defence at the Nuremberg trials. This view was held by a majority of historians until Matthias Schmidt found holes in Speers story. A great blow was dealt to Speers own construction of his role in Nazi Germany when the Walters chronicles were released containing various incriminating evidence. There are still a bend of historians who prefer to view Albert Speer as the Good Nazi, even though most historians now believe that the image created by Speer of himself was self-serving and false. Speers well structured and thought out defence shaped historical interpretation for years to come. At Nuremberg he presented himself as a pure technician and non involved in the politics or ideology of the party. He in any case claimed collective responsibility for crimes against Jews but also his ignorance of th e Nazi intentions. As he stated at a later time I retributive stood aside and said to myself that as long as I did non personally participate it had nothing to do with me. My toleration for the anti Semitic campaign made me responsible for it. This admission of guilt won a fair amount of sympathy from the court. The reasons he gave for being with the Nazi party was that he was taken by Hitlers personality and also pull in that if he was to achieve his dream as an architect he impart have to sell his soul to the party. This image of Speer was to be accepted for a while by most historians and was given little attention. This was probably because Speer was a little less spectacular than Hitlers other henchmen. There were just some suspicions. John Galbraith, a member of the US team that debriefed Speer onwards the Nuremberg trial, said in Life magazine 1945 that Speers claims contained elements of fantasy. He also believed that Speers confession was a part of his well authentic strategy of self vindication and survival.Most historians believed in Speers testimonies until Wolters Chronicles were released. W Shirer The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), A Bullock Hitler a work in Tyranny (1962), and Joachim Fest The Face on the Third Reich (1970) all confront Speer as the good Nazi, the apolitical technocrat and a repentant German. Raul Hilberg, in The devastation of the European Jews (1973) discusses in passing Speers involvement in the Jewish affair but he does not delve in the matter.