Spandau: The Secret Diaries

by Albert Speer

This is one of the most amazing books every written. After being convicted in the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, the prisoners were not allowed to have writing paper, were not allowed to write their memoirs and were allowed only limited visits from their relatives. However, they were allowed to have toilet paper.

So, on thousands of squares of toilet paper, Albert Speer wrote his diary in tiny letters so small that they could hardly be seen, which he was then able to pass to his relatives when they visited him. By the time Speer was released on September 30, 1966, twenty years later, there were more than twenty thousand pages of secret diaries just waiting to be edited and published, but it took him another ten years before he could bear to look at them.

Albert Speer was a brilliant writer and the world should be forever grateful to him for leaving us this work, that addresses and attempts to answer questions the world will always be asking, including:
1. How was Adolph Hitler, an obvious madman, totally insane, able to attain and keep such great power?
2. Why did the German people not recognize what was happening and do something about it long before the destructive end?
3. Most importantly: Can this happen again? Could and will another Hitler arise, perhaps not in Germany again? Perhaps in the United States of America?
What assurance do we have that a lunatic madman could not enter the White House and do much worse than Hitler ever did?

"Albert Speer's book is a deeply moving document. It is also of extraordinary political & psychological interest...a must for anyone interested in psychological motivation of political action & the problem of guilt & repentance. But, beyond this it is so fascinatingly written that I could not put it down before I finished it." –Erich Fromm

Genres: History, Nonfiction, World War II, Biography, Germany, War, Memoir

477 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1975

About the author

Berthold Konrad Hermann Albert Speer was a German architect who served as the Minister of Armaments and War Production in Nazi Germany during most of World War II. A close ally of Adolf Hitler, he was convicted at the Nuremberg trials and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

An architect by training, Speer joined the Nazi Party in 1931. His architectural skills made him increasingly prominent within the Party, and he became a member of Hitler's inner circle. Hitler commissioned him to design and construct structures including the Reich Chancellery and the Nazi party rally grounds in Nuremberg. In 1937, Hitler appointed Speer as General Building Inspector for Berlin. In this capacity he was responsible for the Central Department for Resettlement that evicted Jewish tenants from their homes in Berlin. In February 1942, Speer was appointed as Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production. Using misleading statistics, he promoted himself as having performed an armaments miracle that was widely credited with keeping Germany in the war.[1] In 1944, Speer established a task force to increase production of fighter aircraft. It became instrumental in exploiting slave labor for the benefit of the German war effort.

After the war, Albert Speer was among the 24 "major war criminals" charged with the crimes of the Nazi regime before the International Military Tribunal. He was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, principally for the use of slave labor, narrowly avoiding a death sentence. Having served his full term, Speer was released in 1966. He used his writings from the time of imprisonment as the basis for two autobiographical books, Inside the Third Reich and Spandau: The Secret Diaries. Speer's books were a success; the public was fascinated by an inside view of the Third Reich. He died of a stroke in 1981.

Through his autobiographies and interviews, Speer carefully constructed an image of himself as a man who deeply regretted having failed to discover the crimes of the Third Reich. He continued to deny explicit knowledge of, and responsibility for, the Holocaust. This image dominated his historiography in the decades following the war, giving rise to the "Speer Myth": the perception of him as an apolitical technocrat responsible for revolutionizing the German war machine. The myth began to fall apart in the 1980s, when the armaments miracle was attributed to Nazi propaganda. Adam Tooze wrote in The Wages of Destruction that the idea that Speer was an apolitical technocrat was "absurd". Martin Kitchen, writing in Speer: Hitler's Architect, stated that much of the increase in Germany's arms production was actually due to systems instituted by Speer's predecessor (Fritz Todt) and that Speer was intimately aware of and involved in the "Final Solution", evidence of which has been conclusively shown in the decades following the Nuremberg Trials.

Reviews

[Jon Nakapalau · Rating 5 out of 5]

I remember reading this book and wondering: you were once put in charge of building a new Germany...now you are in a prison while Germany slowly rebuilds...was it worth it? What did you really 'build' in the end? Very interesting book from the perspective of a 'cog' in the machinery that almost destroyed the word.

[Missy LeBlanc Ivey · Rating 4 out of 5]

2023 - ‘70’s Immersion Reading Challenge

Spandau: The Secret Diaries by Albert Speer (1975 in German; 1976 1st English ed.) 463 pages.

To get into this book, I first had to do some intensive research into these 17 men who were in Hitler’s closest circle and were tried and convicted. Seven of them went to Spandau Prison, and ten were hung. I collected notes about each in a bullet journal, and printed thumbprint photos of each in their uniforms, on the job, and sitting in their cells at Spandau. I also printed death photos of the ones that were hung, which are online in Wikipedia.

Maybe it was my preparedness that made this book so interesting to read. This is about the 20 years, the day-to-day life, of Albert Speer while in Spandau Prison. He secretly wrote his notes in tiny print on toilet tissue and wore them underneath the insoles of his shoes until he could get them smuggled out of prison and to his wife. He then was having a friend type them up over the years, and when he was released exactly 20 years to the date, there were 20,000 typed pages for him to sort through for this book. He writes of his mental state, his relationship with Hitler, his love of architect, his gardening of flowers and trees, his walking tours around the compound, and notes on the other six prisoners. They were restricted to a cell of their own down one small hallway that was blocked off from entry to further entry inside this huge, then empty, prison.

Probably, what I felt the most about these men after reading and getting to know some of their traits and personalities is the fact that no matter how much they each nerved each other on a daily basis, towards the end when their time was up and, one by one, each were leaving the prison, it was the emptiness of that personality in the prison that worked on their psyche. When the last two left, only Rudolf Hess was left alone, whom Speer mentioned quite a bit in his diary. But, there was no followup on Hess, except during the last three days before Speer and Schirach’s release.

Schirach approached Hess for a little walk and talk in the garden. Speer overheard Schirach telling Hess that his only hope in getting out is to consistently play insane. But Speer disagreed. He then approached Hess to see if he had any commissions for him. Hess waved him off. Then Speer expressed doubts about Schirach actually delivering Hess’s messages to his family. This is when Hess blew up on Speer, hollering, “How can you suspect our comrade Schirach of such a thing! It’s outrageous of you to say anything of the kind. No thanks! No thanks to your offer!”

Speer later, the same day, went back to Hess and told him it was wrong to attempt to buy his release by pretending insanity. He would be undermining his own image, whereas now he was regarded with a certain amount of respect even by his enemies, and it was possible he would only be released to a mental institute. Hess agreed and told Speer that he wasn’t comfortable with Schirach’s advice anyway. As it turned out in the following years, Schirach never did visit Hess nor did he contact Hess’s son. But, it doesn’t say if Speer did either.

Rudolf Hess, after living for 20 years with these six other men, lived another 10 years alone in that prison before he hung himself in the garden house on August 17, 1987. He was 93 years old. This leads me to my next read, which is on the way, Prisoner #7: Rudolf Hess: The Thirty Years in Jail of Hitler’s Deputy Fuhrer by Eugene K. Bird (1974). Bird had a tour of duty as the Director of Spandau from 1964-1972. I’m left wanting to know more about Rudolf Hess and how he fared during those last 10 years.


**********END OF REVIEW************

NOTES AND THINGS TO REMEMBER


First, since I knew nothing of Spandau nor the Nuremberg trials, I needed to, at least, understand what they were:

1. Spandau Prison, under Russian jurisdiction, was a proto-concentration camp during World War II in West Berlin that, after the war, held seven top Nazi leaders convicted in the Nuremberg trials. The prison was situated in Spandau in western Berlin, constructed in 1876 and was initially a military detention camp, then became a civilian prison, holding upwards of 600 prisoners in 1919. It then became a precursor to the concentration camps. In 1933, the prisoners there were transferred to those concentration camps. In 1946, the prison was completely empty except for the 7 war criminals serving time. There was a monthly change of regimes keeping watch, first Russians, then Americans, then the British and lastly French to make sure the war criminals were treated justly. Spandau Prison was demolished in 1987 after the death of Rudolf Hess. Interestingly, according to Speer, when on watch duty, the Americans read detective stories, worked crossword puzzles and dozed; whereas the Russians studied chemistry, physics and mathematics, and read Dickens, Jack London or Tolstoy.

2. The Nuremberg trials were a series of 13 trials carried out in Nuremberg, Germany, in American jurisdiction but ruled with Soviet Union judges, between 1945 and 1949 to bring Nazi war criminals to justice. Nuremberg is 273 miles (or about a 4 hour drive) from Spandau.

The 10 War Criminals Convicted and Hung

During one of the 13 Nuremberg trials, these 10 of 17 war criminals were convicted on October 1, 1946 and sat in Nuremberg prison for two weeks until hung on October 16, 1946. All remains were cremated in the oven at Dachau concentration camp along with many other Nazi criminals and ashes scattered in Wenszach/Conwentsbach, a small stream in the river Isar in Munich:

1. Hans Michael Frank (1900 – 1946) (age 46)
(Hitler’s personal lawyer and Governor-General of Poland; confessed crimes publicly and became a devout Catholic)
Last words (came to hanging with a smile on his face): I am thankful for the kind treatment during my captivity and I ask God to accept me with mercy.
2. Wilhelm Frick (1877 – 1946) (age 69)
(Minister of the Interior who framed the Nuremberg Race Laws that “legalized” Nazi actions against the Jews; responsible for concentration camps in Bohemia and Moravia, Germany; 6th in line for hanging at 2:05am, six minutes after Rosenberg.)
Last words: Long live eternal Germany.
3. Herman Goring (1893 – 1946) (age 53) NOTE: Someone smuggled in cyanide into his prison cell just hours before his hanging. He committed suicide.
(2nd in succession behind Hitler; spent 2 years in a mental institute 1925-27; became a life-long morphine addict; directed the purge and elimination of Jews from German economy; before trials, he preached to other prisoners that they had to stick together so Hitler will remain a symbol of Germany instead of a murderer; he truly believed he, himself, would go down as a saint)
4. Alfred Jodl (1890 – 1946) (age 56)
(Chief of Armed Forces High Command – Hitler’s principal military advisor; signatures on Commando and Commissar Orders which ordered that certain classes of prisoners of war were to be executed upon capture; denied the 1941 mass shooting of Soviet POWs, claimed the only prisoners shot were “not those that could not, but those that did not want to walk”.)
Last words: I salute you my eternal Germany.
5. Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903 – 1946) (age 43)
(Head of the Reich Main Security Office, which had principal responsibility for tracking down and exterminating the Jews. He controlled the Gestapo and concentration camps; had a brain hemorrhage during interrogation and had to be wheeled into court for his trials)
6. Wilhelm Keitel (1882 – 1946) (age 64)
(Field-Marshall of German forces; Supported wholesale massacres)
Last words: I now join my sons. Deutchland Uber Alles!
7. Alfred Rosenberg (1893 – 1946) (age 53)
(Philosopher of Nazi state; presided over a regime of massacre and mass slavery; was ridiculed by everyone…including Hitler for his philosophies; 5th in line for hanging six minutes before Wilhelm Frick)
Last words, when asked if he had anything to say: No
8. Fritz Sauckel (1895 – 1946) (age 50)
(Nazi minister for labor who trained 4 years under Hermann Goring)
Last words: I die an innocent man, my sentence is unjust. God protect German. May it live and one day become great again. God protect my family.
9. Arthur Seyss-Inquart (1892 – 1946) (age 54)
(Nazi Governor of the Netherlands)
Last words: I hope that this execution is the last act of the tragedy of the Second World War, and that the lesson taken from this world war will be that peace and understanding should exist between peoples. I believe in Germany.
10. Julius Streicher (1885 – 1946) (age 61)
(Anti-semitic journalist whose newspaper was main vehicle for “popularizing” Nazi attitudes towards Jews; stole large amounts of confiscated Jewish property; due to Hess’ persistence, Streicher had been dismissed from all party posts (p. 119); he was avoided by all other criminals during trial; he stayed devoted to Hitler to the bitter end)
Last words: Heil Hitler! This is the Purim festival of 1946.

The 7 war criminals convicted and sentenced to Spandau Prison in order of the number given them while in Spandau Prison:

1. Baldur von Schirach - 20 years, released same day as Albert Speer, after serving full term, on 30 Sep 1966
2. Erich Raeder - Life, released early 26 Sep 1955, due to ill health
3. Konstantin von Neurath - 15 years, released early Nov 1954, due to bad health
4. Karl Donitz – 10 years, released after serving full 10 years on 30 Sep 1956
5. Albert Speer – 20 years, released same day as Baldur von Schirach, after serving full term, on 30 Sep 1966
6. Walter Funk – Life, released early on 16 May 1957, due to bad health
7. Rudolf Hess – Life, died in prison on 17 Aug 1987. He was 93 years old when he hung himself. Last prisoner of Spandau.

Albert Speer worked 12 years under Hitler. He was first his Chief Architect (his first love) and then Armament Minister. He designed for the Nazi regime — the Nuremberg Zeppelin Field, the Reich Chancellery in Berlin (which was torn down by the Russians), and the German pavilion at the 1937 International Exposition in Paris. Albert was age 40 when convicted of abuse of forced labor.

While imprisoned, Speer studied up on language (French), architecture, book projects (his memoir, Hitler’s biography, history of windows), intense gardening (mostly flowers), and walking an around-the-world tour, which was a calculated timed walk around the gardens to imaginary places he studied and read about in books.

He would keep records to see how long it took to walk from place to place, across Europe, Asia and into the United States to Mexico. He walked about 50 to 60 kilometers a week 31-37 miles. In 10 years he had walked 25,471 kilometers , that’s 15,826 miles. By December 21, 1964, Speer passed Seattle, Washington, and entered the United States. By this time, several of the guards were intrigued and had begun walking with Speer. At times, four or five people could be seen walking on the track. Before his release on September 30, 1966, he had walked a total of 31,936 kilometers, that’s approximately 19,844 miles.

Although Speer didn’t disagree or reject with the 20 year sentence given him, one day he found himself disagreeing with the Nuremberg Tribunal’s interpretation and prosecutions in general on one particular subject: forced labor. He, along with the others, discussed the hypocritical way that he and others were charged with committing forced labor laws when those charging them were also forcing labor with German prisoners of war, also an international crime. (p. 50) There is one big difference Speer did not acknowledge…the fact that the Nazi’s used forced labor on not only prisoners of war, but on everyday citizens in every country they overtook, and even deported them to where they were needed. The Nazi’s also created laws to make this type of abuse “legal”. Speer accepted moral guilt, but had a hard time accepting legal guilt because, in his eyes, the Allies were doing exactly what the Germans were doing. According to Speer, Admiral Nimitz, the American Commander in the Pacific, even admitted to ignoring international agreements, thus being responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of sailors, soldiers and passengers. (p. 54) As the years progressed, and he kept on top of the news around the world, in 1965, Speer was having a difficult time with moral clarity, as he was reading about Russian tanks in East Berlin, Indochina in flames, street-fighting in Budapest, Suez, Algeria, and again Indochina, which is now called Vietnam, and then millions of slave laborers in many parts of the world…How much more difficult it has become to accept within oneself the guilty verdict pronounced by those judges. All of this as the Auschwitz trials were just beginning. (p. 421)

Both Dönitz and Raeder carried on in great length about the injustice of their convictions because their subordinates were back at work for the German government while they sat in prison. But, even Speer admits he believed Hitler worked and warred within the norms of European tradition. Where he believed Hitler went wrong was with his insane hatred of Jews and made that a matter of life and death. (p. 353) Speer questioned whether he, himself, was actually loyal to Hitler, and to Germany, or was he just doing his “duty”. He may have contributed to slave labor, but he claims to have treated them well. Is there such thing as a “good” Nazi?

From 1954 forward, it seems the only thing on their minds was an early release. By the 10th year, three of the men had already been let go: Neurath, Raeder and Funk had early releases due to old age and bad health, and then the fourth, Dönitz, was released after serving his full 10 year sentence. Dönitz left prison full of pompousness, considering himself still with power and influence to get the remaining three, who had 20 years and lifetime sentences, out on early releases.

The men knew how important they were because of their intimate relations with Hitler and began writing their memoirs while imprisoned. But, according to Speer, their take contradicts what he wrote in his diary. Raeder claimed in his memoir that he was only close to and associated with Dönitz and Neurath, top commanders, when Speer wrote early on that Raeder and Dönitz were bitter towards each other the whole time, as Dönitz had replaced Raeder as Nazi Navy Grand Admiral. When Raeder was severely ill and depressed, it was Schirach who was by his side and who petitioned Berlin for an early release. Raeder didn’t want to ruin his reputation by admitting he hung with the lower class ”convicts”. (p. 319)

Also, in Dönitz memoir, even after specifically asking Speer if he recommended him to Hitler or was it Hitler, himself, who chose him to be the new Grand Admiral, wrote just the opposite of what Speer told him. Speer said Hitler had asked him how well of a leader was Donitz, and Speer replied that Donitz was a very good and strong leader. So, Hitler replaced Raeder with Donitz, who now blamed Speer for his imprisonment. Speer had an opportunity to read Donitz memoir while still in prison and said it was pretty trustworthy as far as his take on Hitler and the military armaments were concerned. But, Dönitz believed Hitler lost the war because he didn’t build up his supply of U-boats, that he, himself, had recommended; whereas, Speer believed Hitler lost the war because he was constantly changing his mind about where to send the armaments, which he, himself, was in charge of and had to deal with. (p. 333-35)

Three days before release, Schirach approached Hess, the last prisoner, for a little walk and talk in the garden. Speer overheard Schirach telling Hess that his only hope in getting out is to consistently play insane. But Speer disagreed. He then approached Hess to see if he had any commissions for him. Hess waved him off. Then Speer expressed doubts about Schirach actually delivering his messages to his family. This is when Hess blew up on Speer, hollering, “How can you suspect our comrade Schirach of such a thing! It’s outrageous of you to say anything of the kind. No thanks! No thanks to your offer!”

Speer later went back to Hess and told him it was wrong to attempt to buy his release by pretending insanity. He would be undermining his own image, whereas now he was regarded with a certain amount of respect even by his enemies. Also, he could be released to a mental institute. Hess agreed and told Speer that he wasn’t comfortable with Schirach’s advice anyway. As it turned out in the following years, Schirach never did visit Hess nor did he contact Hess’s son.

BOOKS TO LOOK INTO

Inside the Third Reich (1969). Albert Speer’s memoir.

Prisoner #7: Rudolf Hess (1974) OR The Loneliest Man in the World: The Inside Story of the 30-Year Imprisonment of Rudolf Hess (1974) by Eugene K. Bird, Director of Spandau Prison from 1964-1972.

The Ribbentrop Memoirs by Joachim von Ribbentrop (1954)
AND My Father Joachim von Ribbentrop: Hitler’s Foreign Minister, Experiences and Memories by Rudolph von Ribbentrop (2008)

Han’s Frank’s Diary by Stanislaw Piotrowski and Hans Frank (1955 in Polish; 1957 in English)

Memoirs: Ten Years and Twenty Days by Karl Dönitz and David Woodward (1958)

My Life: Grand Admiral Erich Raeder by Erich Raeder (1960)

Ich Glaubte an Hitler [I Believed in Hitler] by Baldur von Schirach (1967) Not available in English.

Hitler as no one knows him: 100 Pictures from the Life of the Fuhrer by Baldur von Schirach and Heinrich Hoffmann (Photographer) (1938; and in English poss. 1998?)

The Last Days of Hitler by Hugh Trevor-Roper (1947). Hugh had asked Speer to read it, while in prison during the first year, and give his opinion on it as it was partially based on Speer’s accounts.

Albert Speer: The End of a Myth by historian Matthias Schmidt (1981). Details Speer’s carefully constructed myth of innocence.

Albert Speer by Magnus Brechtken (2017). Describes how Speer denied his role in the Holocaust

MOVIES

Downfall (2004) Film industry stands by Albert Speer’s innocence as “the good Nazi”. They portray Speer and other cabinet member’s of Hitler in favorable light

Documentary: Speer Goes to Hollywood (2021). Depicts Speer as the war criminal that he was with video interviews, footage from the Nuremberg trials, pictures of the concentration camps and scenes from the Nazis' armament factories that he was in charge of.

[Clare · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was so fascinating to get an inside look into how Albert Speer spent his 20-year imprisonment. I enjoy Speer’s writing style, as it is thoughtful and introspective while still historically informative. I watched as he tried to dissect his guilt, make sense of his actions, and understand his own emotions, and I must say, I enjoyed it.

[Archibald Tatum · Rating 5 out of 5]

Albert Speer a nürnbergi per egyik vádlottja, húsz év börtönbüntetére ítélték, amelynek nagy részét a (nyugat-)berlini Spandaúban töltött le. Mivel az írást megtiltották az elítélteknek, jogos az angol cím, „titkos napló” – cetlikre jegyzetelt, ezeket dugdosta, egy holland őr csempészte ki. S. kissé grafomán lehetett, a napló mellett megírta fiatalkora történetét és egy építészeti munkát „Az ablak története” címmel – annyira bizarr cím, amennyire S. személyisége is az.

Érdekelnek a karizamtikus vezetőkhöz, vad ideológiákhoz, szigorúan hiearachizált rendszerekhez csapódók – teljesen idegen és érthetetlen számomra az a tulajdonság, ami képessé teszi az embert a szabadság feladására a hatalomért. A tévében, a hírekben, fizetett fb-os reklámokban gyakran látok ilyeneket, értetlenül figyelem őket – tényleg nem érzékelik, hogy lejáratják maguk, hogy senki emberfiai nem képes komolyan venni őket, nevetségessé válnak – és szemmel láthatólag élvezik a helyzetet, semmit nem érzékelnek nevetségességükből – a lenézettégükből is csak közvetve, sértettséget vált ki belőlük, amit a lenézők irigykedésével magyaráznak aztán. – Fixa ideámma kezd válni, hogy ahogyan az operetteknek is megvan az állandó öt szereplőtípusa, úgy egy sikeres csapatban, dominánc kis csoportban, a politikában is szükséges a sikerhez, hatalomhoz egy csapat – meghatározott karakterekkel.

Nemrég olvastam Rudolf Höss visszaemlékezését. Egyszerűbb eset, zavaros, kisebbrendűségi komplexusokkal terhelt ember. Goebbelst vagy Göringet nem is érdemes említeni – hajlamos voltam azt gondolni, csupa klinikai eset veszi körül a diktátorokat vagy diktatúrát építőket – nemcsak a politikában, általában emberi szerveződéseknél. Speer azonban – és elég gyorsan, a nürbergi perhez tartozó szövegeknél kiderül ez – normális. Annyira normális, hogy szinte unalmas – olvastam, miket írt, és azt mondtam, az életben mennyire unnám én ez az embert: ez egy technikus, egy művésznek indult, de akként minden hírverés nélkül megbukott álmodozó, akiről aztán kiderül, hogy kiemelkedőek a szervezéshez szükséges képességei.

Töredelmesen bevallom, S. megvezetett. Kialakult bennem egy kép, igencsak pozitív kép róla a szöveg alapján, ez az ember intelligens, még ha ez az intelligencia elvágólagos is az én ízlésemnek, helyenkét figyelemre méltó megfigyeléseket és megállapításokat tesz (ami azért ritka dolog) – itt volt a kérdés, akkor hogyan került ebbe az egészbe? És megmagyaráztam, nagy építész akart lenni, a történelmet akarta alakítani, fiatalon kiválasztották, elsorvadt, vagy ki sem fejlődött az erkölcsi érzéke – azt hiszem, az erkölcsi érzék is képes ilyesmire – aztán elolvastam a wikin a „Speer-mítosz”-t: hogyan építgette ő is és rajongói a róla alkotott képet – ő volt a lelkiismeretes hivatalnok, a technokrata, a „jó náci” – talán minden ordasabb csapatba kell egy „emberarcú” karakter. De, olvasom, csupa ellentmondás itt minden, önmagának is ellentmond sokszor – Speer tehát elhitte saját szerepét, csak épp nem jutott el addig, hogy lássa, ez szerep – a szerep pedig, akárhogy is, de ha nem tudjuk róla, hogy szerep, hazugság. Hajlok a homályos következtetésre, hogy Speer szerep ember nélkül, tisztes, nagy munkabírású, lelkiismeretes, megbízható, ilyesféleképpen írható le – és ennyiben a hazugságai igazságok, mert a szerep szintjén minden hazugság igazsággá válik – közben belül meg üres, nincs erkölcse, nincs olyan viszonyítási pont, ahonnan lelepleződnének a hazugságok – vagyis van, ez a külvilág ítélete – de a belső üresség végül győz, a napló utolsó szakaszában a bűnök megkérdőjelezése, hogy hogyan is ítélkezhetne pl. Amerika vagy a Szovjetunió Vietnam és a gulág után – ez ennek a megnyilvánulása – Speer erkölcsi ürességében a bűn is csak egy közönséges szóvá, hangsorrá válik - vagyis kiderül, mindig is az volt.
(Most erre jutottam.)

Amúgy meg jól ír, sőt nagyon jól, szépen elrendezett, felépített, kissé modoros, régimódi írás, de ízléses, nem pusztán a szerző személye teszi érdekessé és értékessé a szöveget.

[Veni Johanna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simply one of the most fascinating book I have ever read, for three reasons:

1) Speer's position as one of Hitler's closest confidante is clear in this piece - his recollections on Hitler are wonderfully vivid and personal, mostly in casual settings, stripped from Goebbels' oratory languages. He provides insight on Hitler beyond historical facts and figures, but on the man itself, portraying the Fuhrer truly as a person with strong emotions, fears and flaws. The most interesting Hitler story for me is how Hitler tries to 'win' the love of Speer's and Bormann's children without success, even though he, of course, charms the adults.

2) Dynamics between The Spandau Seven, the Nazi criminals incarcerated in Spandau, are particularly interesting. Here we see leaders who are belittled to common prisoners who mop and clean the bathroom with banal day-to-day chatter... Donitz and Raeder, the two former grand admirals, hate each other, Neurath is the diplomat who's always nice to everyone, Funk and von Schirach are best friends, and Hess is the strange, supposedly-mentally-ill one (a lot of very interesting stories about Hess's 'acts' and sanity-insanity).

3) Above all, let's not forget that Speer, different from most of other leading Nazis, is an intelligent, complex man who shows his remorse in Nuremberg Trials while being very close to Hitler before. In this book he deals and confronts his own thoughts about his past with Hitler, continually questioning himself for justification or explanation of what he has done. Through his eyes, I start to understand why so many people admire and follow Hitler blindly, including intelligent people like Speer.

Must read to history, Nazi and WW II enthusiast.

[Lewis Weinstein]

My fictional character Berthold Becker (see A Flood of Evil and A Promise Kept: 1934 to 1946) has pleaded guilty and been sentenced to 20 years at Spandau Prison. Among his 7 co-prisoners is Albert Speer. Berthold, looking for something to engage his mind in the dank emptiness of prison, initiates a conversation with Speer

... and then I have written this ...

"Alone in my cell, many disjointed questions ran through my head about the unique resource to understanding I had begun to develop: What was the best way to keep Speer engaging in serious conversation with me? How could I get him to tell me more about why he and so many others had gone along with Hitler? Could either of us have done more to resist Hitler? Would conversations with Speer lead me to rethink my own guilt?

It occurred to me that it would be important, if these conversations were to continue, to make sure the assessing of blame did not get in the way of understanding. That would be a tight line to walk, but critical if I was to take advantage of my unique and extended access to one of the more intelligent of the Nazi leaders. Was he also observant? What had he seen? I had twenty years to find out?"

Speer's Spandau diary not only reveals his thinking (or his lies about his thinking?) but does so in chronological sequence, which is perfect for my evolving historical novel, as yet untitled, which will follow Berthold and Anna's post-Nuremberg lives.

[Davida · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should not be missed by readers who enjoy the history of WWII and its protagonists.

It is the secret diary of Albert Speer, written on scraps of paper, mostly toilet paper, during his 20 year imprisonment in Spandau Prison, following the judgement handed by the International Military Tribunal at the Nuremberg Trials in 1946.

The book was edited and published in 1975 almost ten years after his release, because as he himself acknowledges in the introduction to the diary, he could not bring himself to look at those miniscule notes when he returned to his family in Heidelberg. The notes had been smuggled out of the prison thanks to the help of friendly guards at Spandau.

The diary entries take the reader through Speer's psychological journey in prison, his thoughts and memories as a front-row protagonist of Hitler's Third Reich, his dealings with the sense of guilt,and yearning for freedom and his family.

Yet in no way does he try to portray himself as the victim. The diary was, in fact, one of the chores that kept him going during those long, mundane years in prison. It also gives an insight to the other War criminals who were serving a prison sentence at Spandau, namely, Doenitz, Raeder, Funk, von Neurath, Hess and Schirach.

Some of the entries are quite amusing and they truly show how these Nazi leaders were no different than any other person in such circumstances, even though some of them obstinately tried to retain a sense of self-importance. Doenitz and Raeder continued to bicker amongst themselves on subjects concerning the German navy, Hess, who at the beginning of the imprisonment, continued to profess attitudes of insanity, seems to have changed over the years, and I dare say he almost turned out to be a loveable character. (I was particularly struck by Speer's description of Hess's words before he (Speer) and Schirach were to be released. Hess had to serve a life sentence).

As for the issue of guilt, that is the subject of anti-semitism and the atrocities, I have to admit, I think Speer only mentioned them fleetingly - exclaiming more than once that he had been no anti-semite. Perhaps Speer has deceived his readers, somewhat, in that particular subject, though I still would not imagine him as being the author of the actual atrocities that took place. He always stood comfortably in the background, but I cannot accept the fact that he naively believed that concentration camps were strictly work camps. But not having had a direct experience with such matters, might have made it easier for him to declare a degree of "innocence" in that regard. Nevertheless he continuously accepts responsability for having been involved in a Government that brought so much suffering in Germany and subsequently in Europe. During his years in Spandau he also consolidates his view, which he states to have started to form in around 1943, that Hitler was not the great man he and the rest of Germany thought him to be. The diary presents various stories of Speer's interaction with Hitler. He also recounts conversations he had with the other prisoners, who being cut off from the outside world, could not but discuss matters from the past.

I think Speer's shame to all that happened is genuine. He was a cultured, intelligent man who systematically organised his prison days in such a way to ward off despair and depression (episodes of depression do come through from some of the diary entries). He kept himself busy with his memoirs, his diary, endless loans of books from the Prison Library and he also started a world walking tour. He merely walked in circles in an area of the prison garden and imagined himself walking across the world. He not only managed to keep the imagination alive (with a heavy dependence on an Atlas and travel books), but he actually noted down all the kilometers he had made! It gave him something to look forward to in Spandau, especially when only three prisoners were left. And yet, some of his entries show that after his 15th year in prison, he was almost afraid of leaving the place.

The book gives you an insight into Speer's character, and reveals some of the mystery that surrounds him. It also re-inforced my view that it was wrong of the Tribunal to hand out the death sentences to the other Nazi leaders tried at Nuremberg. (Only three had been acquitted, the rest were hanged inside Nuremberg prison). Imprisonment would have certainly subdued them and perhaps also given them enough time to re-asses their former situation.

[carl theaker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting insight from Speer on his stay in prison. Not exciting prose by any
means but words from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Speer's everyday activities reveal the battle with one's mind in prison, that
probably Hess was already on his way to losing. Speer got an atlas from
the prison library and set off to hike around the world in the prison
exercise yard, carefully measuring each kilometer.

Picking up this book for the first time in years I see I have saved newspaper
clippings from the '77 on Hess, Feb - slashes wrists -- April, birthday
doesn't ask for cake, May US asks Soviets to release Hess.

[Garry · Rating 5 out of 5]

The single most thought-provoking book I have ever read and re-read. If I am ever asked to recommend a book, this is the one I suggest. While Speer may be less than totally honest in this book, he nonetheless wrestles openly and forthrightly with his guilt, his conscience, his role in history, his time in prison, and more.

[Gerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was actually published in 1976 and after “Inside the Third Reich” (1970) and this had followed his first attempt entitled Erinnerungen ("Recollections") in 1966.

My Opinion: I found parts of this difficult, but at the same time very humanistic. We see Speer, a cultured man tormented in the early days of imprisonment first at Nuremburg, then transferred to Spandau in the summer of 1947 transfixed on all that has occurred to him. Speer became Minister of Armaments and War Production when Fritz Todt was killed in a plane crash on 8 January 1942; and, inherently this is where his guilt lays for the Nuremburg Trials. We know too that the war in Europe could have likely ended earlier had he not been the leader behind the production schedule. The Allies are very well lucky indeed that Speer was not the Munitions Minister before the outbreak of the Second World War and lucky again in 1939, 1940, and 1941. During the early phases of his imprisonment, Speer grasps of what the monster that Hitler was; however, he also acknowledges the special life he had between the years of 1933-45. Humor is occasionally inset within the circumstances of the book on several accounts during the prison years with or toward other prisoners (there were 7 total from the Nuremburg “major” Trials). A joke early on between Speer and Funk (Walter Funk Minister of Economics) develops when Speer informs him that he (Speer) is allowed to have a half glass of champagne daily for his heart condition as prescribed from the Doctors. When one Doctor sees a prisoner of one Nation then all other three Nations have to have their Medical Opinion provided as well (or at minimum be witness to whatever examination is occurring at the time); later this will apply to Dentists during routine dental extractions. To wrap up my personal opinion I believe Speer deserved no more than 5 years and if anyone deserved either a 20 year or “life” sentence it was Admiral Karl Dönitz.

Guards: The Guards split monthly shifts by Director/Nation and four in total: Russian, French, British, and American. In the early days of stay at Spandau Speer is slapped by a guard with a Lithuanian name wearing a Russian uniform. In a polite military fashion Speer does not report the Guard but realizes all of this instantaneously to the event and then informs this Guard that “…you are Lithuanian and I realize you likely have lost your family, I will not report you this time but Guards are not allowed to slap the prisoners…” He observes that during and proceeding the Nuremburg Trials (and prior to moving to Spandau) that the African American Soldiers who guarded him had no “hate” in their eyes; he speculates (I assume correctly) that this is based on the fact that they themselves have been treated indecently for most of their lives and can to some degree understand the difficulty he is under much better than the Caucasian American counterparts. Some Guards were or became sympathetic toward the Prisoners and would at times sneak alcohol for them inside away from the watchful eyes of the Director or other Sentries who could not be trusted. Speer notes and was grateful to a Jewish American soldier who assisted his sneaking unauthorized letters out of the Nuremburg prison period of time after the verdict was rendered in 1946 but before the transition to Spandau.

Meals: During the transition of Guard Director/Sentry duties that some were better than the others. French food was the favorite, though the American and British were the heartier. The prisoners themselves all seemed to lose weight during the Russian period of Director/Sentry duties; but they would soon gain it back.

Walk around the World: Out of sheer boredom and desire to stay mentally alert Speer decides to walk the distance in the Spandau Garden to a city that would provide a physical challenge for him. By this point in 1954 he had spent 8 years on redesigning the gardens of Spandau. His first trip took him to his family home in Heidelberg: 626 kilometers. In his diary, Speer wrote, “This project is…a battle against the endless boredom; but it is also an expression of the last remnants of my urge toward status and activity.” The walking project took on unexpectedly vast dimensions: from Heidelberg, Speer set off through Eastern Europe to Istanbul, passing through Afghanistan into India, through China (Beijing) and Russia (Vladivostok) all the way across the Bering Strait-which he crossed-continuing south down the western coast of North America – walking his way from Alaska, through Vancouver down to Los Angeles; he crosses the Mexican Border in his mind at Mexicali California. His trip ended twelve years after it began. In his final week in prison, Speer sent a postcard to a friend, asking to be picked up some thirty kilometers west of Guadalajara, Mexico. His diaries tally the total distance he walked: 32,000+ kilometers (nearly 20,000 miles but based on previous walking up to 1954 it is quite possible he walked more than 45,000 kilometers), enough to have circled the globe at the equator maybe even twice. The walking ends just a few days before his prison sentence concludes; however he still manages another 200 kilometers even before his final departure day. To prepare himself mentally he read in advance of every location he would be “walking” into or toward. Then, as he crossed the paths of kilometer/miles into the new area he envisioned the scenery, the cold, the heat, the dust, and although he doesn’t expand upon this within this account – he likely managed to think of “people” he’d meet along the way.

Family: Sort of tough reading of this account of the prison term as at first he doesn’t see the young children he left behind, but they do begin to come around in their teenage years. His wife and he had little to say on each of the annual visits – all visits were strictly supervised accept for one that he had with his son in which he was able to touch his hand.

Hitler: Early on he realizes the monster that Hitler was and even acknowledges this by his “guilty” verdict during the Nuremburg Trials. He was after all the Munitions Minister. Speer is the first to contradict accounts of Hitler within his personal privacy of these notes from Spandau against his prisoner acquaintances as well as popular media that begins to develop in the 1950s. Speer states that “Hitler hated what he admired” after an analysis he reviewed stated the opposite. Some comments from Speer (05/06/1960) he states that Hitler is the genius of dilettantism; (05/04/1965) he writes that only two concepts can include all his character traits and that are the common denominator of all the many contradictory aspects: “opaqueness and dishonesty”. There are simply too many to reference in total from this book and seemingly the book in my view is a treasure trove for Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and to a greater extent if possible Philosophers and of course Historians in general.

Intentionally I will not read “Inside the Third Reich” for at least 12 to 18 months. This book is a well written and is in my view a primary source for history as it relates to prison life following the Second World War.

[Erik Graff · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is certainly not as fascinating as Speer's Inside the Third Reich. Based on a prison diary, there is a plodding, repetitive cadence throughout, appropriate for the genre one would think. Still, there was quite a bit to intrigue me, fascinated as I am with the souls of political monsters like Speer, his ilk and, sadly, many of the executives of our own criminal government. Flitting throughout, for instance, is the figure of Rudolf Hess, the lst occupant of Spandau. Sometimes coherant, sometimes withdrawn, sometimes mad, sometimes clearly feigning madness, Hess remains an enigma to Speer and the reader. So also are the others, the unrepentant (except for having lost) Nazis, fascinating in their reduced circumstances--not so far removed from me, from us. Would that Bush and Obama had to read the Nuremburg transcripts and write book reports about such an account. What would they make of it? Would they see any connection with themselves?

[Joy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Albert Speer's astonishing achievement was to keep German industry producing in the face of devastating bombing by the Allies. Sentenced to 20 years in prison, he was able most of the time to keep himself sane with projects such as writing clandestine books, landscape architecture, and an imaginary tramp around the world, supported by detailed geographical study. SPANDAU: THE SECRET DIARIES is a detailed account of his mental and emotional adaptations to prison. Impressive as his achievements were from a detached point of view, the most important thing Speer did with his life was to be "the Nazi who said 'Sorry'." His personal evolution is a role model for the development of international ethics.

Read 2 times. Favorite nonfiction read of 2001. Favorite memoir read of 2019.

[Tom Dougherty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Speer is lucky he got to write this book. He should have been executed as being head of slave labor in the Third Reich.

[Anton Klink · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although Albert Speer wasn't among the absolute innermost circle of Hitler trustees (maybe only Bormann, Göring, Goebbels, Himmler and a few others could be counted among those), he was nevertheless the highest ranking Third Reich official to open up so extensively in a book after the Third Reich collapsed.

Starting out as Hitler's favourite architect and the official architect of the Third Reich, he then moved on to become the Armaments and Munitions Reich Minister and thus enjoyed Hitler's full support for most of the war. In this book he details his fellow inmates in Spandau prison - all of them former high ranking Third Reich officials - and gives an interesting insight into how each of them copes with their new roles and reconciles with the past. Speer's writing style is not very engaging and quite dry at times, but this is excusable, since he is not really a writer and is simply chronicling his own experiences.

It has been more than 10 years since I read the book but I still remember various details and bits of information, which I found extremely enlightening and hugely engaging, yet which I have never been able to encounter in other sources detailing the Third Reich. Even though this book is not as strong as Speer's other book ("Inside the Third Reich"), I'd still say that this is highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the Third Reich on more than a casual level.

[J.E. Lowder · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a WWII junky. And of all the Nazis, Speer is indeed on of the most intriguing. Some hail him as "the good Nazi." Others claim he is a conniving, evil man. After reading Spandau, I personally feel he was writing from an honest heart. I'm not about to put him on a pedestal, or call him "a good Nazi," but he does have some introspective daggers that made me think about my own career and the passive choices one often makes "to become successful." If nothing else, you get an insider's glimpse of the Third Reich and all of the villains that served its cause.

[Nick Black · Rating 3 out of 5]

overall it's too long and too much like an anachronistic blog, but like any foreign blogger with a book deal, it's got its definite moments of wackiness and strange, strange Prussian humor. if you dug Speer's more well-known Life, you'll enjoy this one.
---
sequel to My Life in the Third Reich

[Rob MacCavett · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of Hitler’s top lieutenants tells of being imprisoned for 20 years along with the other Nazi leaders found guilty at the Nuremburg Trial. It’s the story of a once upon a time good guy trying to distance himself from the culpability of Nazi crimes (including his own) and his often pathetic companions in fortress Spandau while carving out some kind of useful life.

[Josh · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd have rated this higher, but I honestly cannot bring myself to trust Speer.

It's a thrilling account, but like all Speer's work, I'm not convinced of its accuracy.

[M.R. Dowsing · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a young architect, Albert Speer became a favourite of Hitler's and later served as his Armaments Minister during the war. Although apparently not an anti-semite and with no direct involvement in Auschwitz, he was sentenced to 20 years at the Nuremberg trials primarily for compelling prisoners of war and foreign workers to undertake forced / slave labour on behalf of the German war effort. What he knew about the death camps is unclear from this book, but it's obvious that at the very least he must have found it convenient to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear on numerous occasions. To his credit, he disobeyed some of Hitler's orders towards the end of the war by refusing to implement the scorched earth policy.

Although these are private diaries, they were published during his lifetime and he was undoubtedly conscious of the image he was portraying of himself. He seldom indulges in self-justification or excuses and generally takes the opposite tack, expressing regret and trying to understand how he ended up serving a man he later came to regard as a vulgar, malevolent criminal.

These diaries are much more than a description of the day-to-day happenings in Spandau. A substantial part is comprised of Speer's thoughts about Hitler, and I think there is some genuine and valuable insight here. That an obviously intelligent man like Speer can fall under the spell of someone like Hitler is a mystery that Speer himself struggles to understand. The diaries also include a fascinating portrait of Rudolf Hess, a very strange man indeed.

This is a fascinating book and it's impossible not to feel sympathy for Speer, but it should be remembered that subsequent research suggests that he carried out a much more active part in actions against the jews than he ever admitted to.

[Shortsman · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's hard to know what is regret of actually believing he's done something terrible, and what is just writing what he needs to write to be able to publish this after the war. Regardless, he writes beautifully about both the good parts and the parts he regrets, and wonders whether it was worth it.

[Henrik Haapala · Rating 5 out of 5]

The classic book Albert Speer wrote in prison. A bestseller at the time and valuable for its human and historical side.

[Natalie K · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a tough one to rate. I read this book several times prior to having Goodreads—my last time reading it was over ten years ago. I decided to revisit it and didn't enjoy it as much as I expected. It's still interesting, filled with fascinating details about the Nazis from someone who was there and at the very top. Somehow I'd forgotten the black, black depression Speer sometimes had during his prison sentence, though. Those passages were difficult to read. And I still maintain this is a lot more readable than his first, and perhaps more well-known book, Inside the Third Reich.

[Jan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tough, tough reading. Speer is articulate, intellectually talented and examines his world (and himself) meticulously. And there are some great insights into a range of issues in here. But it's impossible to read either the mundane (it's cold, the food is bad, whatever) or his enlightenment without thinking of the millions who directly suffered and perished because of the regime he was a part of. Read Sereny's biography of Speer first for essential context.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was somewhat surprising that, after “Inside the Third Reich,” Albert Speer had another books-worth of information to cull from the thousands of scraps of paper he smuggled out of prison during the twenty years he served for crimes against humanity. It’s even more surprising that the book has its merits, although it is much less well-organized and more self-absorbed than the previous one.

This time, rather than try to tell the story of the Nazis once more, Speer simply puts his entries in chronological order, charting his mental state and activities during the years of his imprisonment. That is not to say that there are no new insights about the Third Reich, however; it seems that this was the primary obsession of him and his fellow prisoners for much of the time of their internment. Thus, we have a report of his conversation with Baldur von Schirach about Hitler’s musical tastes, in which Speer reveals that Hitler considered “The Merry Widow” to be a work of genius equal to any of Wagner’s operas. Speer also spends much time reflecting on Hitler’s personal magnetism, and why he was so susceptible to it, even after he had realized the immorality of the regime.

But, fair warning, a lot of this book is taken up with the drudgery and sameness of prison life, and with Speer feeling quite frankly sorry for himself. He doesn’t really get along with any of the other prisoners (he and Schirach have a falling out not too long after the conversation I mentioned above), he doesn’t have enough to do to occupy his time or his mind, he goes through periods of black depression, and the reader goes along with him. There’s a degree to which this is disgusting, when you bear in mind his own admitted responsibility for the conditions of slave labor which existed during his time as armaments minister, and his indirect culpability for concentration camps and gas chambers. He never lived through any of that, and his punishment for it is just, however inconvenient it may have been.

And yet, Speer remains interesting, even if narcissistic. He may have been the most intellectually active of the imprisoned Nazis, and it’s fascinating to see how he occupied his mind. At first, he is enthusiastic about a small garden the prisoners have been given to tend, but when that is taken away and their outdoor activity reduced to simply walking in circles in the yard, he begins an imagined walking tour of the world, tracking how many meters he walks each day, and how far that would put him from Spandau if laid end to end. Appropriately, he spends a lot of time walking through Siberia. He does manage to have books, and takes up a study of the history of the window (his training is in architecture), which seems to reflect his constant staring out of the small window of his cell. And, as self-centered as it may be, his time reflecting on his actions during the Third Reich and the moral consequences thereof reflect the defensive self-examination of a nation as well.

These two books launched me on a period of seeking out the memoirs of notable Nazis and later my study of Fascism as a political system. Neither of them is perfect, and neither is entirely honest, but they are good beginning points for someone who wants to “get inside the Nazi head” and come out relatively unharmed.

[stephanie suh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Albert Speer was a very clever man; he managed to survive a death sentence at the Nuremberg trials and lived to tell his version of the history of the Third Reich, Hitler, and himself as Minister of Armaments and War Production during the WWII. Further to spin his fortune wheel, Speer made a brilliant career of writing memoirs with many a television interview following his release from West Berlin's Spandau prison in 1966 after having completed his 20-year sentence. This book, written between 1946 and 1966 in Spandau, is a collection of his diaries and letters to his family secretly kept against the prison regulations.

The reason that Speer had written his diaries was to keep his mind disciplined and alert by using his mental faculties while serving his time at Spandau. He was afraid of undergoing mental and physical atrophy because the prison life to him was nothing but a repeated series of monanouts routines that would lead to mental stagnation and physical lethargy. Whether Speer had written diaries and other correspondence to his family with the thought of publishing them in mind is hardly probable because it was for the sake of his own ego arrested by a lack of social refinements and intellectual engagements during his confinement.

There are many interesting anecdotes about his fellow prisoners who formed their own social cliques even inside the prison: Albert Speer and Rudolph Hess did not congregate with the other prisoners but spent most of their time alone. In fact, Speer was disliked by the other prisoners for his admission of guilt and repudiation of Hitler at the Nuremberg trials. So was Rudolf Hess for his reputed antisocial personality and allegedly conceived mental instability. The two former Grand Admirals, Erich Raeder and Karl Dönitz stayed together. Baldur von Schirach, the German Nazi Party's national youth leader and head of the Hitler Youth, and Walther Funk, Reich Minister for Economic Affairs, were described as "inseparable". It was Konstantin von Neurath whom Speer seemed to have a good opinion on for his amiability and amenability to all until his release in 1954.

The book is not a history book or a testament to Speer's apologetic gesture of penancing his involvement in the Nazi regime. As Freud once said, "Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar," this memoir is only a memoir, encompassing Speer's intellectual capacities to develop his mind by constant reading books from the prison library and writing about them in secret and his desire of being with his family, especially the sons who seemed to feel uncomfortable with their father when visiting him in prison. Upon reading this heavy volume of memoir, I am convinced that it was his sagacity and intelligence that saved him from death and that enabled him to launch a successful writing career afterwards.

[Ty · Rating 4 out of 5]

Albert Speer was a Nazi. A prominent one for several years. And though he fell somewhat out of favor with Hitler, and straight disobeyed him at the very end, his place in the history of the Third Reich is undeniable. Speer himself would not even deny this. This lack of denial, even during the Nuremberg trials, and Speer's subsequent acceptance of responsibility for his actions and those of the Reich, renouncing Hitler in the process may have kept his prison sentence to a "mere" 20 years.

Those 20 years he served in Spandau Prison, and with the help of sympathetic guards and staff, he kept a secret (and illegal) diary of his experiences and thoughts while known merely as "Prisoner Number Five." The diary, smuggled out pieces at a time and written at times of scrap paper, makes up most of this book.

Can and should one enjoy a book written by a Nazi war criminal, even one of the very few who renounced his Nazism? It is perhaps a conundrum that can never be fully solved. A lot will depend on how sincere a reader believes Speer's acceptance of responsibility, and his ruminations in his prison diary to be. We cannot of course truly know the mind of Speer. But we can consume what he has written, as I have done. Determining how legitimate the man's expressed regrets is not my purpose here. My purpose is to review the book. In so doing, I cannot help but label it a fascinating, intelligent work of considerable depth.

At times confessional, at times introspective investigation, and at times reportage on the difficult yet sometimes darkly humorous daily aspects of long term imprisonment, (minutia included) Speer's diary is without a doubt an intriguing read.

Fundamentally the book is a 20 year prison diary of a Nazi war criminal. But those with a legitimate interest in delving into topics such as isolation, regret, guilt, imprisonment, even bureaucracy and art/literature will find purpose in reader Spandau: The Secret Diaries. They will also find a surprisingly accessible work from a highly complex man who himself remains uncertain of all the reasons why he allowed himself to be sucked into the Hitler vortex. That being said he is refreshingly candid about the topic when he does touch on some possibilities.

Most intriguing and also most frightening, are Speer's assessments of how a dictator comes to power, despite lacking any true leadership talents. His statement of horrifyingly prescient for our current political climate in more ways than many would care to admit.

How much regret did Albert Speer truly feel? My guess is quite a bit, based on what I read. And while, as I said I cannot be certain as to his level of regret, I am certain that I do not regret reading his diary.

[Kaarthik Anebou · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book I would caution is quite dull as a subject per se. But when you get into the details Mr Speer takes us through it is really a lot of information. Imagine your life for 20 years within a perimeter; with additional restrictions imposed on your life style from time to time and not much of a friendly company.

The narrative and anecdotes is what keeps the book interesting - a lot of reflections from the author's past; his boss' mistakes and his. It is a walk down memory lane where he offers a perspective what he would have been if it is not for Hitler to choose him, why he was chosen and the grand plans of the third reich. His boss's plans - sketch of Hitler's character (though this is very detailed in Speer's "Inside the Third Reich").

If you have patience and you are capable to feel the emotional state of some one else's world then this book is highly recommended. It reads through 300 odd pages; but when you check journals dates for each year you will be stunned how some one can go through the same routine for such a long time (author doesn't record for a couple of months at times). Life in prison (without the violence that exists today) is really a pain and is no easy task.

It is really something that breaks you emotionally and crushes you within- your passion, your friends and family (like you can't see your own kids grow). There is nothing left for you when you walk out - time lost is everything lost. In my personal opinion I don't support Speer's release (without imprisonment), but when I look at his crimes is 20 years really a fair trail?

[Jmprueter · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very tedious book to plow through and read....mostly a disappointment. Very little insight into the inner workings of the Third Reich and even much less so about Adolph Hitler. This book could have been about any 20-year prisoner experience and almost entirely about the day-to-day movement and happenings of prison life i.e. complaints about the prison regulation, the monotony, endless and I do mean endless rants and raves about the garden he tended, his prison relationship with the other Nazi leaders imprisoned with him like Hess, Donitz etc. All their inner conversations were about who was talking to who, their aches and pains, attitudes of the new guards, their mental sickness from being in prison, it's almost spring, almost summer, almost winter, almost fall.....will I get a job when I get out? How will my children react to me? and on and on page after page. I felt I got out of prison when I finished reading it.

[Tony Taylor · Rating 4 out of 5]

He served as Hitler's architect, the undisputed master of the German war machine, and the one responsible for conscripted foreign labor in the Third Reich. And, when Albert Speer was captured and sentenced at Nuremberg--after becoming the only defendant to plead guilty--he started keeping this secret diary, much of it on toilet paper. After 20 years of imprisonment, he found 25,000 of the smuggled pages waiting for him, and from those entries he shaped this deeply powerful document. "Albert Speer's book is a deeply moving document. It is also of extraordinary political and psychological interest...a must for anyone interested in psychological motivation of political action and the problem of guilt and repentance. But, beyond this it is so fascinatingly written that I could not put it down before I finished it." --Erich Fromm.

[Ed Schofield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great stuff. Makes you think. It would seem that a good chum of Adolf Hitler had a conscience. The book is worth a read but I think it must also be read in conjunction with his other work 'Inside the Third Reich' which was written at the same time while he was in Spandau prison. Albert Speer was Minister for Armamments Production in Nazi Germany at the end of the war, was tried at Nuremberg in 1946, found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to 20 years prison. It's clear though that his only crime was failing to put a stop to the Nazi brutality, a very tall order in a murderous regime; a crime that many were guilty of. This is an excellent document left behind by a well-connected top Nazi.