Afternoon Session
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Fritzsche, extracts from your speech dated 5 July 1941 will be handed to you. They concern the opposition which the German Fascist troops encountered while entering Soviet territory. My Lord, this Document Number 3064-PS has already been submitted by the Defense.
Will you look at Paragraph 7, the last paragraph? I do not intend to read it.
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I have noted it.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Do you admit having used those very expressions?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I admit that and I should like to emphasize, without quoting it, in what connection this statement was made.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I merely want to ask you the following: When, in your speeches you insult the Polish and Russian peoples by calling them “subhumans” do you not consider that these are expressions of misanthropic theories?
FRITZSCHE: Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to state that I never called the Russian people or the Polish people subhumans.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I do not intend to argue with you; the documents speak for themselves.
I would like to turn again to the statement of Hans Voss. This is Document USSR-471. It has already been submitted. Will you pay attention to Excerpt Number 2? It is underlined. It is just a short excerpt, and I will read it:
“...and he”—Fritzsche—“understood how to influence the German mind when he tried to convince them that they, the Germans, were the superior race and therefore had to rule over other peoples as their slaves.”
Does that agree with the facts?
FRITZSCHE: No, it does not agree with the facts; rather, it contradicts the facts in all points.
GEN. RUDENKO: Let us say it contradicts your assertions.
Very well, I will put another question to you. Do you know the name Lieutenant General Rainer Stahel, who was the former commander of the city of Warsaw?
FRITZSCHE: I am not familiar with that name.
GEN. RUDENKO: You are not familiar with that name? Very well. You will be handed a document.
Mr. President, this is Document USSR-473, and it is the testimony of Rainer Stahel, dated 15 September 1941. The passage is underlined in your copy.
I will read the first excerpt:
“Goebbels and Fritzsche took every measure in order to popularize the racial theory among the Germans and to convince them that the Germans were a master race and that other peoples, as inferior races, must be subordinated to the German ‘master race.’
“In order to convince the Germans of this and to compel them to believe in this theory, the Ministry of Propaganda, run by Goebbels and Fritzsche, made a large number of films before the war and during the war and published books, pamphlets, periodicals, and other literature in which the authors attempted to prove the ‘superiority’ of the Germans over other nations.
“It can be said that as a result of the energetic activity of Goebbels and Fritzsche the racial theory gained a firm hold on the minds of large numbers of the German people. This contributed to the fact that during the war the German soldiers and officers, having assimilated the teaching of the leaders of German propaganda, committed bestial crimes against peaceful populations.”
Tell me, did Rainer Stahel correctly describe the part played by you in the propagation of racial theory?
FRITZSCHE: No, I should like to add that the level of this statement is even lower than that of the other statements submitted to me. I should be happy if just one of those people whose testimony has been submitted to me in this form, could appear here in person in order to testify as to the documentary basis of his statement.
GEN. RUDENKO: I believe that during the 6 months that the Trial has lasted, you have heard enough testimony. Well, let us go on.
FRITZSCHE: No, I have to make this observation: I have not been confronted with any testimony of witnesses dealing with the subject matter discussed here.
GEN. RUDENKO: You remember, I hope, the testimony of the witness Hoess regarding the extermination of millions of persons.
[There was no response.]
GEN. RUDENKO: I say that you, I hope, remember the testimony of Hoess, the commander of the concentration camp in Auschwitz, concerning the extermination of millions of people.
FRITZSCHE: I did not forget this testimony, and not for a minute did it escape my memory.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I merely wanted to remind you. I do not intend questioning you on this matter. I am passing on to questions connected with the propaganda regarding the preparation for aggressive war by Hitler Germany. In order to shorten the cross-examination, I shall quote a few of your own statements, dated 12 September 1945, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-474. Please look at the second excerpt. It is underlined.
FRITZSCHE: I object to the reading of this quotation in the same way as I objected to the submission of the entire minutes of the interrogation, and I refer you to what I testified a few hours ago as to the origin of this record.
GEN. RUDENKO: You already gave an explanation to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal will consider your explanation. This document is submitted, and I intend to cite this part of the testimony. Please follow me—Excerpt Number 2:
“In order to justify this aggressive action, Goebbels summoned me to him and gave me instructions to conduct a hostile campaign against Austria. Among other things he instructed me to dig out old documents in the archives which in any way incriminated the Austrian Government and to publish them in the press. Goebbels stressed that the documents to be published must first of all show that the Austrian people wished to unite themselves with the German nation and that the Austrians adhering to these ideas were being persecuted by the Austrian Government. Furthermore, Goebbels said that the German press had to show that the Germans living in Austria were being systematically persecuted by the Austrian Government which even went to the length of carrying out mass reprisals against them.”
And further on:
“When Germany occupied Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, Norway, and the Balkan countries, acting on the instructions of Goebbels, I organized a similar calumnious propaganda.”
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, surely it would be better to ask him with reference to one of these paragraphs: Did he say that?—rather than to put to him the whole document at once.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I have only one paragraph left, and I intended to read it and then to put the question to him.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not objecting to that. I am only suggesting that it would be better if you put to him each paragraph in turn, and not put three or four paragraphs all in one question.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well, Mr. President; I will deal with it in this way.
I am asking you, Defendant Fritzsche, do you admit the paragraph read by me concerning the Anschluss?
FRITZSCHE: No; and I maintain that that is not what I testified. That extract contains rather the thoughts which the interrogating Russian officer entertained in respect to my testimony. After it had been drawn up, the record was submitted to me for my signature.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute! What do you deny in it? Take the first paragraph.
FRITZSCHE: Mr. President, I am protesting against everything, particularly against the expressions applied here which I have never used. During my interrogations in Moscow I stated exactly the same things as I stated here in this Trial yesterday, the day before yesterday and today or as I have set down in my affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Take the first paragraph. The first paragraph has just been read to you: “In order to justify this aggressive action...” Were you asked any question about that, and did you make any answer?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, indeed. In many interrogations which were held late at night, I was asked such questions, and to the subjects condensed in this one question I answered as follows:
I do not recall the date, but when the Austrian action was about to take place I was summoned to Dr. Goebbels. Dr. Goebbels told me that the Austrian Government of Schuschnigg had plans of such and such a nature—they have been described in sufficient detail here—that a government crisis had developed, that Seyss-Inquart had taken over the Government, that a call for help had come from Austria, and that now the march into Austria would take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you now telling us what you told the Russian interrogator, or are you telling us what actually happened in Germany at the time of the Anschluss?
FRITZSCHE: I am telling what I told the interrogating Russian officer, and that is exactly what took place in the Propaganda Ministry on the day in question.
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, then, that this first paragraph is entirely made up, are you?
FRITZSCHE: No; I should not like to use the expression “made up,” but I should like to say—and I beg permission to do so—which parts in this paragraph are correct. First of all, there is the point that there was a hostile campaign against the Schuschnigg Government; such a campaign actually was instigated in the German press; whether at the moment of his resignation or just before his resignation I do not remember now.
Furthermore, it is correct, as set down in this paragraph, that it was proposed to show, by quoting individual cases as far as possible, that under the Schuschnigg Government those who were sympathetic toward Germany were persecuted. These are the points that are correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: Strictly speaking, this means that you have now corroborated what I have just read.
FRITZSCHE: No, no, sir. There is an essential difference.
GEN. RUDENKO: From your point of view. But I believe that you will not deny the fact that you conducted propaganda directed against the Austrian Government. This is the main point of this question.
FRITZSCHE: I must deny that as well. This propaganda was not conducted by me, but by my predecessor, as chief of the German Press Department.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do I understand correctly that you deny having participated personally in this propaganda, but do not deny the fact that there was such propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: You understand me correctly if by the term “propaganda” in this case you mean the enumeration of those measures used by the Schuschnigg Government against German interests as a whole.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I should like to read the following paragraph of the same testimony which says:
“When Germany occupied Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Norway, and the Balkan countries, acting on the instructions of Goebbels, I organized a similar calumnious propaganda. In every such case I dug out every old document from the archives which incriminated the Governments of these countries as far as Germany was concerned, added my commentary to these documents and attempted in this way to justify this or that aggressive action on the part of Germany.”
Do you also deny this?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, in that form I deny that as well.
GEN. RUDENKO: But you will not deny that propaganda for the purpose of aggression was conducted against all the countries enumerated in this testimony?
FRITZSCHE: I contest your last remark. I admit the fact of the propaganda, and I have described in detail the individual actions and my participation in them in my affidavit, Document 3469-PS.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well; I do not intend questioning you further, as this has been quite adequately explained in your statements dated 7 January 1946, Document 3469-PS, and which, in fact, do not contradict what has been stated. Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: I see an essential difference. But this Document 3469-PS is absolutely correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well, I should like as a supplement to this, to read the testimony of Ferdinand Schörner, which is Document USSR-72 and which has already been submitted to the Tribunal; I mean Extract Number 3. He says in his statement, I read:
“Fritzsche’s political activity in his function as official radio commentator, in the same way as the activity of the war correspondent, General Dittmar, was subordinated to the main aim of National Socialism, the unleashing of the world war against democratic countries and the contributing by all possible means to the victory of German arms. Fritzsche’s principal method, applied during the several years of his activity, consisted in, as I later realized, the deliberate deception of the German people. I mention that because during the last years we soldiers felt this deception especially keenly since in spite of Fritzsche’s false lamentations we knew the actual conditions on the front and the actual situation. The main guilt of people such as Fritzsche is that they did know the actual state of things, but despite this, proceeding according to the criminal intentions of the Hitler Government, consciously fed the people with lies or, to use a German expression, ‘threw sand in their eyes.’ ”
Tell me, Defendant Fritzsche, does this characterization of German propaganda correspond to the truth?
FRITZSCHE: That is utter nonsense and it happens that I can partly prove that. Herr Schörner says part of the activity of the war correspondent General Dittmar was the starting of aggressive wars. General Dittmar spoke over the radio for the first time in the winter of 1942-43. That is one point.
The second point is the following: I have never seen Herr Schörner. I do not know him and I have never spoken to him. I should be very surprised if he were in a position to judge whether I deliberately or unconsciously at any time ever said anything that was not true. However—and this is something I must add—during the last few days in Berlin I received indirectly, through State Secretary Dr. Naumann, a report from General Field Marshal Schörner with the instruction that it was left to my discretion to make use of it. It reported that he was in Bohemia with an army which was intact and that he could, if he wanted to, hold this territory for an unlimited period. We in Berlin should not lose courage; he could even come to our aid. I do not know whether Schörner actually made this statement but I think it would be worth while to call General Field Marshal Schörner here as a witness, in order to ask him on what he based his judgment.
GEN. RUDENKO: The fact that you do not know Ferdinand Schörner does not disprove this testimony, for you have yourself stated before this Tribunal that although very many people knew you as an official representative of the Government, you could, of course, not know everybody; is that right?
FRITZSCHE: If you will permit me, sir, I should like to call your attention to something illogical. Even without knowing me, it is very easy for anyone to give an opinion about the things I said, but it is impossible for anyone to judge whether I made those statements in good faith or in bad faith. I am sure that you yourself realize this distinction.
GEN. RUDENKO: You are speaking again of your personal participation, but you do not deny the lying character of the German propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: Again I cannot answer “yes” to the question in the way that you put it. This morning I gave you a basis for questions which can be put to me. I contributed my share to a historical clarification by trying to show what was pure idealism and what were false assumptions; these things are now being confused.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am not putting questions on the basis which you pretend you gave me, but upon the basis of documents which are at the disposal of the Prosecution.
Let us go on. I should like to ask you: Did you know the documents about the “Case Green” against Czechoslovakia, about the documents concerning the aggression against Poland, the aggression against Yugoslavia—and about the propaganda which had to be conducted in this respect?
FRITZSCHE: I heard for the first time here the documentary data for Case Green. But as you are now again trying to tie this up with propaganda measures, it is very hard for me to keep both of these matters separate. Perhaps it will serve your purpose if I answer that neither in the case of Czechoslovakia nor in the case of Poland nor in any other case did I know about the German attacks until an hour or an hour and a half before they were announced to the German public.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did you say an hour or an hour and a half?
FRITZSCHE: I do not wish to commit myself to an hour or an hour and a half. I do recall that in the case of Russia I had advance knowledge through Dr. Goebbels perhaps 5 or 6 hours beforehand.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You will now be handed Document USSR-493. It is your radio speech in connection with the aggression against Poland. This speech was made on 29 August. Its purpose was to explain beforehand the reasons for the German attack on Poland and it was made on 29 August. I do not intend reading it, but the gist of this speech is that on 29 August you spoke of a series of unexpected events which were imminent. Have you acquainted yourself with this document?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, indeed.
GEN. RUDENKO: You do not deny that on 29 August 1939 you made this speech?
FRITZSCHE: No, I do not deny that. I should just like to refer to the fact...
GEN. RUDENKO: Excuse me. Please answer my question first and give your explanations later. This was on 29 August? You do not deny it. I am asking you, did you yourself believe in these explanations of unavoidable war with Poland? Did you yourself believe this at that moment?
FRITZSCHE: Whether at that moment I considered a war unavoidable, that I am not in a position to tell you. But I am able to tell you one thing: I did not believe that Germany was to blame. That if this tension should lead to a war...
GEN. RUDENKO: That is enough.
FRITZSCHE: I ask to be allowed to add...
GEN. RUDENKO: But please be brief.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, let the man answer.
GEN. RUDENKO: If you please.
FRITZSCHE: At that time it was a matter of great satisfaction to me that in the weeks that followed I could see from the Soviet press that Soviet Russia and its Government shared the German opinion of the question of war guilt in this case.
GEN. RUDENKO: I believe it is not the time to discuss this now nor did I ask you for explanations on this subject. You did not answer my question, but let us pass on to another question. On 9 April 1940 you made a speech concerning the reasons for a possible occupation of Norway. You will now be handed an extract from this speech.
Mr. President, this is Document Number USSR-496.
You have that document, Defendant Fritzsche. It is Excerpt Number 4.
FRITZSCHE: No, I do not have it. Yes, I have found it. It is Page 4.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Yes, it is Excerpt Number 4. I will read a short passage:
“The fact that German soldiers had to carry out their duty because the English violated Norwegian neutrality did not end in a warlike but in a peaceful action. No one was injured, not a single house was destroyed; life took its daily course.”
This was a lie. Do you admit it or will you deny it?
FRITZSCHE: No, that was not a lie, for I had just been in Norway myself and I had seen these things. And everything will be quite clear if you will permit me to read the next sentence, which says—the next sentence reads as follows...
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Fritzsche, wait a minute. You will read it later.
THE PRESIDENT: But, General Rudenko, you must let the man explain. He wants to read the next sentence in order to explain this sentence.
FRITZSCHE: The next sentence reads:
“Even there, where Norwegian troops, instigated by the misguided former Norwegian Government, put up resistance, the civilian population was hardly affected by this, for the Norwegians fought outside the cities and villages....”
GEN. RUDENKO: Well. Now I will show you a document, “An Official Report of the Norwegian Government,” which has already been submitted to the Tribunal by the French Prosecution as Exhibit RF-72.
Mr. President, in my document book this document is wrongly numbered Exhibit USSR-78. It is Document 1800-PS and it has been submitted by the French Prosecution as Exhibit RF-72.
[Turning to the defendant.] Listen, Defendant Fritzsche, how correctly you described the situation in Norway; listen what the “Official Report of the Norwegian Government” says about it. I quote:
“The German attack on Norway on the 9th of April 1940 brought war to Norway for the first time in 126 years. For 2 months war raged throughout the country, causing destruction to the amount of 250 million kroner. More than 40,000 houses were damaged or destroyed and about 1,000 civilians were killed.”
And that describes the situation as it really was. Do you admit that your speech on 2 May 1940 was full of the usual lies?
FRITZSCHE: No, I do not admit that, but I assert that you, sir, in submitting this extract, are not taking into consideration the fact that I, in my introduction, reported that I wanted to describe what I had seen myself, when I made a journey into the Gulbran valley and which I remember took me nearly as far as Atta. It does not in any way prove my description to be incorrect, if, according to the facts ascertained by the Norwegian Government, such loss and damage actually did occur in connection with this undertaking.
GEN. RUDENKO: I believe that the Norwegian people and the Norwegian Government had sufficient experience of the weight of the German occupation, and the government report states actual facts and not the sort of facts which you stated in your propaganda. This document has been submitted in accordance with Article 21 as indisputable evidence, and I do not intend to argue with you. The Tribunal will take note of it. I have a few more questions to put to you in connection with a matter which has already been dealt with in detail here. It is the Athenia case. I will not question you in detail on this matter, as it has already been ascertained with sufficient accuracy. I am simply asking you: Do you admit now that Fascist propaganda gave out to the public slanderous and false information about the Athenia case?
FRITZSCHE: Whether this was done by Fascist propaganda in Italy, that I do not know. National Socialist propaganda did it in good faith, as I have clearly described.
GEN. RUDENKO: I have already been speaking for nearly an hour about what occurred here and what has been ascertained. Do you agree that this speech was a slanderous one or do you still deny it?
FRITZSCHE: No, I have already admitted that and I also showed clearly how these statements came about.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I am interested only in the personal part you played in this matter. Why did you take such an active part in this matter, and why were you the first man to spread this slander?
FRITZSCHE: I do not believe that I was the first one to bring this matter before the public. However, it is a fact that I spoke very frequently about the case of the Athenia, on the basis of official reports which I believed. I spoke about this case because I happened to be the very man who, at the beginning of the war, spoke on the radio in the evenings.
GEN. RUDENKO: Are you trying to assert that the first report on the Athenia appeared in the Völkischer Beobachter in October, 1939?
FRITZSCHE: I never claimed that.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well. Then I will remind you that you dealt with the Athenia as early as September 1939; is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, of course, the question of the Athenia...
GEN. RUDENKO: And you spoke about it before the report was published in the Völkischer Beobachter?
FRITZSCHE: Many weeks before that, yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Therefore, you were the first to spread those slanderous assertions?
FRITZSCHE: No, I cannot confirm that, but rather...
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. In this connection I will put only one other question to you. You will not deny that in 1940 you still spread this version? I will repeat the question. I am asking you, you will not deny that even in 1940 you continued to propagate this slander?
FRITZSCHE: It is the essence of every form of propaganda that it repeats good and effective things as frequently and for as long a time as possible. I have explained already that in December of 1945, here in the prison only, I heard from Grossadmiral Raeder for the first time that it was really a German U-boat that had stink the Athenia.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I will pass on to a group of questions regarding your participation in the carrying out of propaganda connected with the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union. You assert that you had no knowledge of the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union until 5 o’clock on the morning of 22 June 1941—that is to say, when the German troops had already entered Soviet territory—and when you were called by Ribbentrop to the Foreign Office, where a press conference was being held. Did I correctly understand your testimony?
FRITZSCHE: No. Several hours before that, on the evening of the day preceding the entry, Dr. Goebbels had called some of the departmental chiefs of the Ministry to his house at Wannsee and told them these facts and forbade them to leave or to telephone. That was the first real knowledge that I had of this fact.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You also claim that you got to know of Germany’s aggressive aims with regard to the Soviet Union only in 1942, and this according to your own observations, is that right?
FRITZSCHE: I do not know what you mean by that. I tried this morning to make it clear that I began to have doubts as to the truth of the official German reasons given for this attack only when I was in prison. I explained that this morning. A second point, which I emphasized earlier in Moscow when I was interrogated, was that I observed in 1942—it may have been in 1941—after the war with the Soviet Union had broken out, that preparations of all kinds must have been going on for quite some time before 22 June.
GEN. RUDENKO: I will recall to your memory an excerpt from your statement, a document which you confirm in full. It is Number 3469-PS. In Paragraph 42 we read:
“At the beginning of 1942 I was a soldier in the eastern theater of war. I saw the extensive preparations which had been made for the occupation and administration of territories extending as far as the Crimea. On the basis of my personal observations, I came to the conclusion that the war against the Soviet Union had been planned a long time before it broke out.”
Is that statement right?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, certainly.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, then, I have no further questions to put to you regarding this matter.
I would like to recall to your memory two further documents connected with the carrying out of propaganda, in view of the preparation of war and the actual attack against the Soviet Union. I am referring to the minutes of a conference held by Hitler dated 16 July 1941.
This document, Mr. President, is Number L-221 and has already been submitted.
[Turning to the defendant.] This document will be handed to you and I will quote one or two paragraphs on the first page. I quote:
“Now it is essential that we do not disclose our aims to the whole world. There is also no need for that; the main thing is that we ourselves know what we want. But on no account should we render our task more difficult by making superfluous declarations. Such declarations are superfluous for within the reach of our power we can do everything, and what is beyond our power we will not be able to do anyway.”
And further:
“What we tell the world about our motives for our actions must be governed by tactical considerations. We must act here in exactly the same way as we did in the case of Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium. In those cases, too, we did not say anything about our aims, and we shall have the prudence to adhere to this method in the future.”
Did you have any knowledge of such directives of Hitler?
FRITZSCHE: No, I did not know of any such directive, but the fact that such statements and directives have been submitted in this courtroom has made me realize, I have said, that some of the premises of our propaganda have no foundation.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You also had no knowledge either of the instructions issued by the OKW and signed by the Defendant Jodl regarding the carrying out of propaganda in the “Case Barbarossa”?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot say that without seeing these documents; the Case Barbarossa as such meant nothing to me until this Trial.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, this is Document Number C-26 and has already been submitted to the Tribunal. I will deal with it only in connection with the matter of propaganda. It is Exhibit USSR-477 in your document book, Mr. President, Document C-26.
[Turning to the defendant.] I will quote one excerpt, Defendant. These instructions say:
“Propaganda directed toward the dismemberment of the Soviet Union into single states is not to be used for the time being. In the various parts of the Soviet Union German propaganda must use that language which is most spoken. But this should not be done in such a way that the various propaganda texts might give the impression that it is intended to dismember the Soviet Union at an early date.”
Were you acquainted with these directives?
FRITZSCHE: I knew neither the document nor the contents of the directive which you have just read.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, but I hope you will not deny that this was the spirit in which the propaganda was carried on.
FRITZSCHE: No. As far as I could observe, the propaganda which was carried on in the Soviet Union had just the reverse tendency. It tried to educate the various nationalities, such as the Ukraine, White Russia, Baltic States, and so forth, for independence.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I would like to ask you now: When did you meet the Defendant Rosenberg for the first time, and when did you get his information concerning the tasks of German propaganda in the East?
FRITZSCHE: I doubt whether before this Trial I ever spoke with Herr Rosenberg, but I do believe I met him socially. However, never in my life have I had an official conversation with him.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You will be handed Document Number 1039-PS. This is Rosenberg’s report on the preparatory work concerning matters connected with the eastern countries. This document has already been submitted to the Defendant Rosenberg and he did not deny it, but confirmed it.
I would like you to turn to the second quotation which is marked. In order to shorten this cross-examination, I will not read the whole quotation. This report states:
“Apart from these negotiations”—about which we spoke before—“I received the responsible representatives of the entire propaganda organization, namely Ministerial Director Fritzsche, Minister Schmidt, Reich Superintendent of Broadcasting Glasmeier, Dr. Grothe for the OKW, and others. Without going into details as to political objectives, I instructed the above-mentioned persons in confidence about the necessary attitude, with the request to tone down the whole terminology of the press on uniform lines, without issuing any statements.
“The schemes for dealing substantially with questions concerning the eastern countries, which were prepared a long time ago, have now been issued by my office and I have passed them on to the propaganda representatives.”
Did Defendant Rosenberg correctly describe these events which occurred in 1941, before the attack against the Soviet Union?
FRITZSCHE: No. I do not recall ever having been received by Rosenberg. In any case I never received before 22 June, from Rosenberg or from any of his colleagues, any report about the planned attack on the Soviet Union.
On the other hand, and this perhaps may clarify matters, I do recall that a colleague of Rosenberg’s frequently came to see me or my colleagues. I even recall his name; he was chief of a press group, Major Kranz, formerly an editor of the Völkischer Beobachter. This man frequently came to see me and my colleagues and transmitted certain wishes of Rosenberg’s pertaining to press propaganda. But in any case this was not before 22 June.
GEN. RUDENKO: This means that as far as you are concerned what Rosenberg writes in his report is not true?
FRITZSCHE: Untrue would be saying too much. It may be that this information of which he talks refers to a later period of time. I cannot judge that, as I have not read the entire document. It may also be that Rosenberg, in this report, was not quite accurate when he mentions the reception of the responsible representatives of the entire propaganda organization.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. In this connection I would like to put two questions to you. First of all, I would like to refer to the written testimony of Hans Voss, which is Document USSR-471, and which you already have. It is Excerpt Number 3 of Document USSR-471. Have you found it?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I have found it.
GEN. RUDENKO: I quote:
“After the defeat of the German troops at Stalingrad and after the start of the general Soviet offensive on the whole Eastern Front, Goebbels and Fritzsche took great pains to shape German propaganda in such a way as to help Hitler very effectively in mastering the situation at the front. This propaganda was based on the hope that the Germans would succeed in holding out for a long time. There was an attempt to frighten the German population by disseminating calumnious reports of the brutal acts of the Russian soldiers and the intention of the Soviet Union to annihilate the German nation.
“In the last stage of the war the propaganda conducted by Goebbels and Fritzsche made one last attempt to serve Hitler and to organize resistance to Soviet troops.”
Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: It is not only incorrect, it is nonsense.
GEN. RUDENKO: You frequently used such terminology. Obviously it is a sign of a professional practice. All right, I do not intend to enter into polemics with you.
I would like you to take a look at your testimony of 12 September 1945. It is the third excerpt of the Document USSR-474. Have you found that passage? I will quote your explanations concerning this question.
FRITZSCHE: All of them are not my statements. What passage are you referring to, sir?
GEN. RUDENKO: I mean marked Excerpt Number 3, which begins with the words, “The military aggression against the Soviet Union.”
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Please pay attention:
“Since we had a treaty with the Soviet Union the military attack on the Soviet Union was prepared by Germany in secret. Therefore, during the period of preparation for war against the Soviet Union, no propaganda was carried on. Accordingly, the German propaganda authorities did not begin active anti-Soviet propaganda until after the war started on the Eastern Front.
“It must be added that the main task to which Goebbels set the whole propaganda machinery was to justify Germany’s expansionist policy toward the Soviet Union.
“From this point of view, as chief of the German press and radio, I organized a vast campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda, attempting to convince the public at large that the Soviet Union and not Germany was the guilty party in this war. I must, however, state that we had no documentary basis for accusing the Soviet Union of preparing an armed attack on Germany.
“In my radio talks I tried especially to instill fear of the horrors of Bolshevism in the hearts of the peoples of Europe and the German population. Thus I asserted that only Fascist Germany was the protective barrier for the European countries against Anglo-American ‘plutocracy’ and ‘Red imperialism.’ ”
Do you admit this?
FRITZSCHE: Here again actual statements made by me have been distorted. If I may, I want to give you the factual basis briefly for the various points.
It is correct to say that I stated in Moscow that the war against the Soviet Union had not been prepared for by propaganda, because this war came very suddenly and as a surprise. Furthermore, it is correct to say that after the attack on the Soviet Union it was the main task of German propaganda to justify the necessity of this attack; therefore we had to emphasize again and again that we had merely forestalled a Soviet attack. Further, it is correct that I said that the next task for propaganda was to show that not Germany but Russia was guilty of this war, which amounts to practically the same thing. Unfortunately the most important argument which I quoted is omitted from this record, namely, that I and with me millions of Germans believed the official communiqués given out by the German Government because it would have seemed to us nonsensical and crazy if in the middle of a war which had not yet been decided in the West, we wantonly and willfully risked another war in the East.
I continue. It is also correct that the evidence given in the White Book published by the Foreign Office at the time was rather meager and it is furthermore correct to say that German propaganda wanted to make Europe afraid of Bolshevism. It is finally correct that German propaganda again and again emphasized the fact that Germany was the only bulwark against the Soviet world revolution.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I would now like to draw your attention to Excerpt Number 4 of the same document, which is in your possession, in connection with propaganda to keep alive the spirit of resistance in the German people, notwithstanding all evidence of Germany’s obvious defeat. I would like to read this very short Excerpt Number 4 from the same document Number USSR-474. I quote:
“Beginning in 1943 I tried my best to assert through German radio propaganda that Germany was in possession of weapons which would shake the power of our enemies. For this I used invented data regarding the output of the German war industry which had been given me by the Reich Minister for Munitions, Speer.”
Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: One part is wrong and the other part that is correct has been wrongly stated.
To begin with the latter part: It is correct that I received figures from the Ministry for Armaments and War Production which gave me great hopes for progress. I received, for instance, figures dealing with monthly aircraft production, figures dealing with new and especially effective fighter planes. In the meantime, through direct questioning of Speer himself, I have ascertained that the figures which I received were quite correct at the time and that the airplanes either were used wrongly, as, for instance, in the Ardennes offensive instead of for the protection of the home country, or that they could not be used because of the gasoline shortage. The first half however...
GEN. RUDENKO: You are going too much into details, Defendant Fritzsche. You are going into a lot of details which have already been dealt with here and which have nothing to do with you.
I would like to submit to you the testimony of Speer, who was interrogated by the Soviet prosecutor here in Nuremberg on 14 November 1945. I submit this document as USSR-492. I would like to read into the record only that part of the document which deals with the carrying out of propaganda during this particular period. I quote:
“In September 1944 I wrote a letter to Dr. Goebbels...In this letter I warned Goebbels that it was wrong to keep on giving out propaganda about new V-weapons, for in this way he would merely arouse vain hopes in the German people. This was secret propaganda which was carried out by Dr. Goebbels in order to inspire in the German people the hope of a favorable outcome of the war.”
Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: Only partially. It is a fact that Dr. Goebbels, more than a year before the use of the first V-weapon, himself made propaganda with it. On the other hand, Speer in the meantime has stated in his testimony here that he now knows the actual source of the propaganda dealing with “miracle weapons,” namely Standartenführer Schwarz van Berk. Finally, Dr. Goebbels in the last months of 1944, likewise tried to stifle this “miracle weapon” propaganda which he himself had once instigated.
GEN. RUDENKO: Now, I would like to remind you of the part you played in this propaganda. You propagandized these new weapons to instill in the hearts of the German people the hope of a successful resistance.
I submit to you Document USSR-496. You already have it. It is your radio speech of 1 July 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: General, are you going to finish very soon or shall we adjourn now?
GEN. RUDENKO: I believe we should adjourn now, Mr. President, because I will still need about half an hour.
[A recess was taken.]
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, Excerpt Number 6 from Document USSR-496 has been submitted to you. It is your speech, dated 1 July 1944. I am going to read it into the record:
“We Germans have been very reserved in our reports on the effect of the new weapons. We could afford this reserve, knowing that sometime or other Britain would break the silence with which she tried at first to gloss over the effect of the V-1. We were right about it. Reports from Britain during the last few days, and especially today, prove that the effects of the first thrusts with the new weapon are becoming all too obvious. It is completely beside the point for the British to complain now about the wave of hatred which is supposed to surge from Germany against the British Isles. In the fifth year of the war it is useless to talk about feelings, although much could be said about this.”
Do you admit, Defendant Fritzsche, that by means of such propaganda you duped the German people and incited them to senseless resistance?
FRITZSCHE: On the contrary, in this case I spoke much more reservedly and much more modestly than, for instance, the German press did about the results of the V-1. For that matter the very next sentence following your quotation reads, “We can only repeat that for us the V-1 is the means with which we can break the enemy terror.”
GEN. RUDENKO: Now I should like to remind you, Defendant Fritzsche, of your testimony of 12 September 1945 with regard to the activity of the Werewolf organization. This document is Exhibit USSR-474, Excerpt Number 5. Have you found it?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I have found it.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am going to read it:
“At the end of February 1945 the State Secretary in the German Ministry of Propaganda, Dr. Naumann, sent on to me instructions from Goebbels to work out a plan for the organization of a secret broadcasting station. In reply to my question as to why this broadcasting station was needed, Naumann explained that the German Government had made the decision to transfer members of the NSDAP to an illegal secret organization called ‘Werewolf.’ Naumann also revealed that all these illegal Werewolf groups would be directed by means of this broadcasting station, which I was to establish.”
As can be seen by your testimony you were opposed to the organization of this radio station and you spoke about it with Goebbels. In spite of this, the station was created, and the former chief of the Reich Propaganda Office, Schlesinger, was given the task of directing the broadcasts. Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: No. Two things have been mixed up here. Firstly, the plan described in the paragraph which you have read for the creation of a Werewolf broadcasting station was a plan for a mobile station and that mobile station was not built. On the other hand—incidentally, it happened during my absence—on 1 April 1945, by direct order from Dr. Goebbels, the so-called “Old German Broadcasting Station” was opened as a Werewolf station.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I do not want to argue with you about it and I should like to submit to you your own speech broadcast on 7 April 1945. It is the same Document USSR-496, Excerpt Number 7. Have you found it?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: At that time you broadcasted as follows:
“However, as a result of superiority in manpower and material reserves, the enemy has now penetrated deep into German territory, and at this moment is about to carry out his program of extermination directed against us.”
I am skipping a few lines:
“Let no one be surprised if this desire of strong hearts to avenge oppressed human beings does not even need a short respite for temporary recovery, but leaps suddenly and unexpectedly into flame and becomes active. Let no one be surprised if here and there in unoccupied areas civilians take part in the fight or even if, after the occupation has been carried out, the fight is continued by civilians, that is to say, if without preparation and without organization, there comes into being, springing from the pure instinct of self-preservation, that phenomenon which we call the ‘Werewolf.’ ”
Well, what can you tell us now?
FRITZSCHE: Although this quotation also has been torn from its context, I recognize it very well. Unfortunately the passage is missing in which I spoke of right and said, “Right is a sensitive concept which has its roots in tradition and ethical consciousness.” At present...
GEN. RUDENKO: Excuse me if I interrupt you, Defendant. I did not ask you for such detailed explanations. I just wanted to determine the fact that you not only explained what the organization was, but also did your utmost to foster the Werewolf organization.
Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: That is absolutely incorrect. This is certainly not propaganda for the Werewolf; it is in apology for cases of Werewolf activity.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Let us drop that subject. I should like to ask you, do you know who the head of the Werewolf organization was?
FRITZSCHE: That has already been stated here. At the very head of it was Bormann. Under him there was a Higher SS Leader whose name I tried in vain to remember during my interrogations in Moscow. I knew one of his associates, however, and that was Gunter d’Alquen.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Before putting the last few questions to you, I should like to ask you, is it not a fact that Rosenberg and Streicher had great influence on German propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: Their influence was negligible. Streicher had no influence at all on official German propaganda and Rosenberg only to an extent which was not noticeable to me.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. I still have a few questions to put to you. You told the High Tribunal that had you known Hitler’s decrees for the murdering of people you would never have followed Hitler. Did I understand you correctly?
FRITZSCHE: You have understood me perfectly correctly.
GEN. RUDENKO: Now, in other words, I understand you to say that you would have gone against Hitler?
FRITZSCHE: It is hard to say what I would have done. Of course, this is a question about which I have now thought a great deal.
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to ask you, if, as you stated here to the High Tribunal, at the beginning of 1942 you received information that in one of the regions in the Ukraine, which was at the time occupied by the Germans, an extermination of the Jews and the Ukraine intelligentsia was being prepared, simply because they were Jews and members of the Ukrainian intelligentsia? Did you receive such information? Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: That is correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: That was in the beginning. In May of 1942 you were with the 6th Army, and in the 6th Army you learned about the existence of an order to shoot the Soviet commissars; is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: You considered that this bloody order should not be applied? Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: That is right.
GEN. RUDENKO: You knew that this order emanated from Hitler?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I could imagine that.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is to say, in 1942 you knew already that Hitler’s order to murder existed and yet you followed him?
FRITZSCHE: You are comparing two things which are not comparable. There is quite a difference, not treating commissars as prisoners of war and giving an order for the killing of 5 million Jews.
GEN. RUDENKO: Then, if I understand you correctly, the fact that you did not go against Hitler, meant that you considered such an order to be permissible in the conduct of the war by the German Army?
FRITZSCHE: No; I considered it was an impossible order; and that is why I opposed it, and not only passively as others did.
GEN. RUDENKO: But you continued to support Hitler?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Here is the last question. Tell me, during the war, did you ever concern yourself with the question of preparations for biological warfare?
FRITZSCHE: Never.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did you ever hear the name of a certain Major Von Passavant?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I know that name.
GEN. RUDENKO: He was the representative of the OKW in the Ministry of Propaganda, was he not?
FRITZSCHE: No, he was not. He was a radio expert in the Propaganda Department of the OKW.
GEN. RUDENKO: A copy of a letter of 19 October 1944 will be submitted to you. This letter bears your facsimile signature, and it is directed to Major Von Passavant of the OKW. This is a short document, and I am going to read it to you:
“To the Chief of Broadcasting, Major Von Passavant, OKW:
“A listener, factory owner Gustav Otto, Reichenberg, has sent me the enclosed sketch with the proposal to carry out biological warfare. I am submitting this to you with the request that you forward it to the proper office.
“Heil Hitler. Fritzsche.”
Do you remember this document?
FRITZSCHE: Of course I do not remember it. At the same time I want to state that I have no doubt that it is genuine.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I should like to put the last question to you: This shows that you were in favor of the planning and the carrying through by Germany of biological warfare, is that correct?
I have finished, Mr. President.
FRITZSCHE: But I must have an opportunity to answer the last question. I wish to state that I was by no means in favor of biological warfare, but the situation was merely this: Every day piles of letters came in from listeners and these were passed on by one of the departments to the office competent to deal with the matter concerned and the accompanying letter, which consisted of two or three lines, was submitted to me for signature. As a rule I did not read the contents of the letters.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, do you want to re-examine?
DR. FRITZ: Herr Fritzsche, just now during General Rudenko’s cross-examination you were asked about the radio speech of 2 May 1940 in which you spoke about your journey to Norway. Can you tell me more exactly when you went on that trip?
FRITZSCHE: I am afraid I cannot tell you the date exactly, but if I am not mistaken it was at the end of April.
DR. FRITZ: The official report of the Norwegian Government on war damage after Norway’s occupation by the Germans was put to you. Here it is said that the fighting which had caused this damage could not have taken place until after you had already completed your journey. Is that true?
FRITZSCHE: That is quite possible, but I should like to say this: In the extract which the Russian prosecutor has read without quoting the beginning, I described precisely what I had seen in clearly stated places; Lillehammer and Godenthal are a few names which occur to me now. To compare these statements now with the statements made by the Norwegian Government regarding the total damage is nothing less than the attempt to measure a liquid with a yard measure or vice versa.
DR. FRITZ: I have one other question in this connection. Was this journey of yours carried out before the British landing in Norway or afterward?
FRITZSCHE: I myself had an opportunity to watch a fight with British troops. I think it was just south of a place called Ottar in the Buldrenthal.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, General Rudenko, during his cross-examination, submitted three interrogation records. One was from Voss, USSR-471, one from Schörner, USSR-472, and one from Stahel, USSR-473. In the meantime I have looked through these three records and I should like to ask the High Tribunal also to compare these three records. I have ascertained that in these three records, of the statements of three different persons, parts of the answers are repeated; and they tally, word for word. It says, for example...
THE PRESIDENT: You are not getting this from the witness; you are making an argument to us, and you must do that at some other time.
DR. FRITZ: I just wanted to make an application, Mr. President. If these three records are used for the findings, then I wish to make an application that at least one of these persons who were interrogated be brought here in person for the purpose of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you meaning that you should see, or that we should examine, the whole of those three affidavits, or were you meaning that you wanted one of the people who made the affidavits to come here in order to give evidence and be cross-examined? Which do you mean?
DR. FRITZ: The latter, Mr. President. I should merely like to request that all three be summoned.
FRITZSCHE: All three. I can only ask to have all three called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. FRITZ: Apart from this, Mr. President, I do not wish to carry out any further redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one thing, Defendant. You referred to the Commissar Decree, or order, and you spoke of it as though it were an order not to treat commissars as prisoners of war. That was not the order, was it? The order was to kill them.
FRITZSCHE: The order which I got to know about in the 6th Army was an order saying that commissars who had been captured should be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That is a very different thing from not being treated as prisoners of war. The answer you gave was that you imagined the Commissar Order came from Hitler, but it is a very different thing, an order not to treat commissars as ordinary prisoners of war and to kill 5 million Jews. That was not a fair comparison at all, was it?
FRITZSCHE: In this case I must admit that my way of expressing myself with reference to these commissars was not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one other thing I want to ask you. In October 1939 this untruthful statement about the Athenia was published in a German newspaper. That is right, is it not?
FRITZSCHE: In October 1939? During the whole of September and October untruthful statements about the Athenia were made in the German press as well as on the German radio.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But on the 23d of October 1939 a particularly untruthful statement attributing the sinking of the Athenia to Mr. Winston Churchill was made in a German newspaper. You told us about it.
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you continued to broadcast referring to those alleged facts for some time, did you not?
FRITZSCHE: Of course, because at the time I was still under the impression that they were true and my...
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I wanted to ask you about. You had a naval liaison officer in your office?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What inquiries did you make?
FRITZSCHE: This naval officer was not actually the liaison officer between us and the High Command of the Navy. He was censorship officer for the entire Armed Forces. Nevertheless I naturally called on his services in connection with naval matters. And several times I ordered him, or rather, requested him to find out from the High Command of the Navy how the investigation of the Athenia case stood. The answer was always the same: “The position still is that no German submarine was near the place of the catastrophe.”
THE PRESIDENT: And are you saying that that liaison officer of the Navy told you that after the 23d of October 1939?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he continue to tell you that?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. He may return to the dock.
Yes, Dr. Fritz?
DR. FRITZ: Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call the witness Herr Von Schirmeister.
[The witness Von Schirmeister took the stand.]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
MORITZ VON SCHIRMEISTER (Witness): Moritz von Schirmeister.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will withhold and add nothing.
[The witness repeated the oath.]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, before beginning your examination, I should like to ask you to make your answers quite general and as brief as possible.
Will you please give the Tribunal very briefly some particulars of your career, so that the Tribunal may know more about you.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I come from a family of officers and civil servants; studied theology for three terms; 10 years as a banking official, 5 of them in South America; then editor until my appointment in Berlin; on 1 October 1931 I became a member of the Party; SS Hauptsturmführer in the Allgemeine SS; during the war four times a soldier; the last time from 31 July 1944 on; on 22 September 1944 prisoner of war in British hands; since then I have been in Great Britain.
DR. FRITZ: When I discussed the subject of your examination with you a few days ago, you told me that your former positive attitude toward National Socialism would not prevent you in any way from making truthful statements here, is that true?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I have already told you that I believed in this cause, that I have sacrificed everything to it, that I have lost everything through it. It was very bitter for me. But today I know that I have served a bad cause. I have freed myself entirely of it. In my last camp in England I was permitted to assist in the re-education of my comrades. There I was allowed to edit the camp newspaper. And if I only could, then I would help today to rebuild a democratic Germany.
DR. FRITZ: When did you become acquainted with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: On 1 July 1938.
DR. FRITZ: What were you at the time? What position were you to occupy?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I was an editor in Braunschweig and I was called to the Ministry of Propaganda in order to become Dr. Goebbels’ personal press expert.
DR. FRITZ: What position did you actually occupy in the Ministry of Propaganda?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to 1 July 1943 I was Dr. Goebbels’ personal press expert; then I was personal expert to State Secretary Dr. Gutterer until 1 April 1944; then I went with him for 3 months to the UFI which was the controlling company of all film companies. Then, on 31 July 1944, I went to the front.
DR. FRITZ: Did you have daily contact with Dr. Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes, since the outbreak of the war. Let me describe briefly what my main activities were.
DR. FRITZ: Very briefly, please.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: During the war I had to look through all the news and propaganda material coming in from enemy broadcasting stations and regularly submit extracts from it to Goebbels. These extracts formed the basis for Dr. Goebbels’ propaganda instructions which he himself issued every morning. In the afternoon and evening I had to telephone them to the press section and radio section. So that during the war, except when my deputies took my place, I was with Dr. Goebbels in his apartment, I took my meals with him, slept in his house, accompanied him on journeys, and so on.
DR. FRITZ: What position did Fritzsche occupy at the time?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche in those days was the deputy chief in the department Home Press.
DR. FRITZ: Will you please describe the nature and importance of Fritzsche’s position in the Propaganda Ministry also during the period which followed. Very briefly, please.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I was to get acquainted with the work of the department Home Press. Conditions there were as bad as they could be. The chief, Herr Berndt, adopted undisguised table-thumping tactics. He went about barking out commands and sacking editors en masse.
In ability and knowledge the officials in charge were inferior to the average editor. The only steadying influence was Herr Fritzsche; he was the only expert. He knew the needs and requirements of the press. On the one hand he had to mend the china which Herr Berndt was constantly smashing and on the other hand he tried to replace inefficient officials in the organization with better ones.
DR. FRITZ: Would it be correct to say, therefore, that Defendant Fritzsche was not appointed as an exponent of the Party, but as an expert?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Only as an expert. The extremist Party men in the Ministry did not give Fritzsche his full due. But as an expert he was then and later the good spirit of the press.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche one of those collaborators in the Ministry who had regular conferences with Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: These regular conferences had not yet begun to be held in those days, and Fritzsche did not partake in them in any case.
DR. FRITZ: So that he was not consulted until he became a department chief?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes; only as far as such conferences were taking place, but actually only since the outbreak of war.
DR. FRITZ: In what way did Dr. Goebbels confer with his associates?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: After the war broke out there were daily conferences at 1100 hours, which were presided over by Dr. Goebbels personally and at which he gave all necessary propaganda instructions.
DR. FRITZ: How many people attended these 11 o’clock meetings?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: At the beginning, that is to say, up to the beginning of the Russian campaign, about 20 people. Later the circle grew to about 50 people.
DR. FRITZ: Were there discussions during these conferences or was it more or less the giving out of orders?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: There was no discussion during these conferences. First of all, the liaison officer from the OKW would give a survey of the military situation and then Dr. Goebbels would give his instructions regarding propaganda, mostly for the press, the radio, and the newsreels.
DR. FRITZ: Who presided over the conferences when Dr. Goebbels was not present?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Normally the State Secretary.
DR. FRITZ: And who presided when the State Secretary was not there either?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Usually Herr Fritzsche, sometimes also the head of the foreign press department or the foreign department, but mostly Herr Fritzsche.
DR. FRITZ: Did Fritzsche in these cases give the daily propaganda instructions on his own initiative or how was that done?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No; if the Minister was not in Berlin, he was kept informed about news material coming in from abroad. He would then give the instructions to me or to one of my deputies in the same way as he did during the conferences. I had to pass on these instructions by telephone. In Berlin they were taken down by stenographers and then read out during the conference verbatim as instructions coming from the Minister. By the way, this must be seen by the minutes of the meetings. They were always called “Instructions from the Minister.”
DR. FRITZ: If Fritzsche used written instructions such as you have described, given by Dr. Goebbels, did he not try to clear up questions which Goebbels had not dealt with, by bringing them up for discussion?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: When Dr. Goebbels was farther away from Berlin, it might happen that the latest news did not reach him in time. In these cases Herr Fritzsche would bring things up for discussion, consider the pros and cons and then give instructions on his own initiative. That was then put down in writing; the Minister read it afterward and he either approved it or altered it.
DR. FRITZ: But then, surely apart from the big conferences with 30 or 50 people present at which Goebbels gave his instructions there must have been more confidential conferences as well.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In the course of the morning, naturally, individual department chiefs also came for official discussions with the Minister.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche also called to these more confidential conferences?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Generally, no. The Minister used the conferences at which all departments were represented to summarize whatever he had to say for the press, radio, and newsreels. The heads of those departments whose special functions were not of interest to the others, came for individual conferences.
DR. FRITZ: How often was Herr Fritzsche consulted as compared with, say, the state secretaries—Hahnke, Gutterer, and Dr. Naumann?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: The state secretaries could always be present during these individual conferences and so could the personal advisers who were always there. Herr Fritzsche was very rarely present at these individual conferences.
DR. FRITZ: What was the position of the 12 department heads of the Ministry of Propaganda, one of whom was the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: These department heads can be classified into experts on the one side, such as, for instance, the head of the budget department, Dr. Ott, and confirmed Party men on the other side as, for instance, Herr Berndt. Officially they had not a particle of the authority which was normally exercised by a department head in a ministry. It was generally known that the Minister was using them as tools and that when he did not need them any more he would throw them out. That did not apply to the department heads only. I remember the unworthy manner in which he threw out State Secretary Gutterer when he had enough of him.
DR. FRITZ: The Indictment accuses Fritzsche of having made of Germany’s news agencies, radio, and press an instrument that played an important part in the hands of the so-called conspirators in carrying out their plans. Was Fritzsche responsible for the organization of the press in the National Socialist State and what can you say to this charge?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: When Herr Fritzsche entered the Ministry, this press department had been set up and organized for some time. Moreover, I can also say that even Dr. Goebbels himself cannot be regarded as belonging to this circle of conspirators as defined by the Indictment; for, after all, he did not want to drive us into war, but always advocated the conquest of countries without bloodshed.
DR. FRITZ: So that the organization was already set up when Fritzsche took over the department German Press in the winter of 1938-39?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes, already completely organized.
DR. FRITZ: As the head of that department was Fritzsche independent? If not, who was his superior?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Unfortunately Fritzsche was not only subordinate as department chief to Dr. Goebbels, but he also stood between two fires. On the other side there was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich, and the entire German press knew about this discord between the two. Although Reich Press Chief, as State Secretary, was a staff member of the Ministry of Propaganda, nevertheless he demanded the right to be able to give orders independently in his capacity of Reich Press Chief. If, therefore, the Minister and the Reich Press Chief did not agree on a certain point, then it was the unfortunate chief of the department German Press who bore the brunt of this.
DR. FRITZ: In what way was Fritzsche active in the press organization? Did he tighten the fetters or did he try to loosen them?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I have already said that Herr Fritzsche was the only real expert of any caliber who worked in the press department. He knew the needs, the worries, and the requirements of the press. He knew that an editor could work only if you give him a certain amount of freedom, and thus always and at every opportunity he fought to have the fetters loosened. He did much more than was apparent to the outside world, for the Minister would make such and such a decision and the outside world would come to know only what the Minister wanted.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think he has answered the question?
DR. FRITZ: Did Dr. Goebbels have any objections to the way the press worked? Was it not aggressive enough for him? Please be very brief.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No, it was not aggressive and not obdurate enough for him.
DR. FRITZ: And how did Fritzsche react to such demands both with reference to individual journalists and with reference to the newspapers as a whole?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Again and again, at every opportunity, both during the conferences presided over by the Minister and at private meetings with the Minister, he spoke on behalf of the press and the journalists and tried to represent their point of view to the Minister.
DR. FRITZ: Can you mention a few names of journalists or papers whom Fritzsche tried to protect in the manner described?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, why should he give the names of individual journalists and papers? Isn’t it too detailed to go into that?
DR. FRITZ: Very well; but Mr. President, may I, in that case, at least offer an affidavit in connection with this question as Document Number Fritzsche-5. It is in my Document Book Number 2 on Page 22. It comes from the editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung, Dr. Wendelin Hecht, and I should like to quote it very briefly:
“I herewith make the following affidavit for submission to the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg:
“1. It is true that the Defendant Hans Fritzsche also helped to protect the Frankfurter Zeitung for several years against a ban by withholding copies of the Frankfurter Zeitung from the Führer’s headquarters.
“2. In the numerous attacks directed against the Frankfurter Zeitung because of its political attitude the Defendant Hans Fritzsche repeatedly intervened in favor of the continued publication of the Frankfurter Zeitung.
“Leutkirch, 6 March 1946. Dr. Wendelin Hecht.”
What other influential persons, apart from Dr. Goebbels, were there in the Ministry of Propaganda?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: After State Secretary Hahnke’s departure there was only one man in the Ministry of Propaganda who had any real influence on the Minister, only one man with whom Dr. Goebbels had some personal relations, and that was his first personal adviser, Dr. Naumann, who later became his state secretary.
DR. FRITZ: Did Fritzsche come to you frequently to learn more about the Minister’s views because the Minister did not inform Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Very often, because Herr Fritzsche knew that I also had many private conversations with the Minister and he always complained that he was left in suspense and all at sea, and he asked me if I could not tell him the Minister’s view about this or that matter. I did succeed in helping him by occasionally arranging for him to be invited by Dr. Goebbels to private meetings in which I spoke openly about Herr Fritzsche’s needs.
DR. FRITZ: Did Goebbels keep the radio strictly under his own control?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: During the war the radio was for Dr. Goebbels the most important instrument of propaganda. He did not keep such a strict watch on any department as he did on the radio department. At meetings over which he presided he personally decided the most minute details of the artistic program...
DR. FRITZ: That is enough, Witness. Was Fritzsche really the leading man of German broadcasting, as he appeared to the outside world?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: By no means. The leading man was Dr. Goebbels himself. Apart from that, Fritzsche here again was between two stools, because on the other side demands came in from the Foreign Office with reference to foreign broadcasts.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche in his radio speeches perhaps too halfhearted for Dr. Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I myself, by order of the Minister, repeatedly had to reprimand Fritzsche, because the former claimed that his broadcasts were much too weak.
DR. FRITZ: Did Goebbels also praise him? And if so in what manner?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: If, as was often the case, the Minister did praise Fritzsche...
THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t any interest in whether Goebbels praised him.
DR. FRITZ: Then another question: Did Defendant Fritzsche ever contradict the Minister?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche was one of the few people in the Ministry of Propaganda who did contradict the Minister, both during conferences and in his apartment. He was always calm and determined and often it had a certain effect.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, may I have your permission to draw your attention at this point to a document, an affidavit by Scharping, Document Number Fritzsche-2, which has already been mentioned frequently. It is at the end of Page 7 and the beginning of Page 8 in my Document Book Number 2. Might I perhaps quote one short sentence: “At the so-called ministerial conferences it was Fritzsche alone who contradicted Goebbels on political questions.”
Witness, who was responsible for the definitely false or exaggerated news in the German press during the Sudeten crisis?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That was Alfred Ingemar Berndt, the head of the department. At that time he spent whole nights pouring over General Staff maps, directories, and lists of names, using them to fabricate atrocity reports from the Sudetenland. Herr Fritzsche watched this with anxiety. He came to me once and asked me, “What are we drifting into? Are we not drifting into war? If only we knew what they really want at the top and what is behind it all.”
DR. FRITZ: And then another question on the same subject. Did Goebbels, in connection with any military or political actions, which were being carried out or were to be carried out, ever consult beforehand with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Not only did he not consult with Herr Fritzsche, but with nobody at all. The Minister never had any such consultations.
DR. FRITZ: Fritzsche asserts that he did not hear of Dr. Goebbels’ instigation of the anti-Semitic excesses in November 1938 until much later, a remark made by Dr. Goebbels himself. That does not sound very credible, because, after all, Defendant Fritzsche was a close associate of Dr. Goebbels. Can you give us an explanation?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In 1938 certainly none of us in the Ministry realized that Dr. Goebbels was the instigator. During the night in question Dr. Goebbels was not in Berlin. As far as I remember, just before that he had been to see the Führer and he was still in southern Germany. The conversation which you have just mentioned did not take place until the middle of the war. It took place at Lanke, where the Minister had a house and it was on an occasion when Herr Fritzsche had also been invited. Someone put the direct question to the Minister as to the cause of these excesses of November 1938. Thereupon Dr. Goebbels said that the National Socialist economic leadership had come to the conclusion that the elimination of Jewry from Germany’s economy could not be carried out further...
DR. FRITZ: Witness, excuse me, that is enough. We have heard about it already today. Did Fritzsche later on—I believe it is supposed to have been in June 1944—talk to you about his general attitude toward the Jewish problem?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In May or June 1944 I talked to Fritzsche in his apartment about the fact that on the day of these outrages he had said to me, “Schirmeister, can one participate in this sort of thing and still be a decent human being?” And then Herr Fritzsche said to me, “You know, I have really always been an anti-Semitic, but only in the sense that some of the Jews themselves also were.” And he mentioned a Jewish newspaper, I believe the C. V. Zeitung...
DR. FRITZ: That is enough, Witness. Then how do you explain Fritzsche’s anti-Semitic statements in various of his radio speeches?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: They had been ordered by the Minister. We had seen from the British press that a certain anti-Semitic current in Britain was growing, but a law in England stopped this from appearing in the British press. Now the Minister tried to find a common factor against which our propaganda abroad could be directed. This common factor was the Jew.
To give support to the foreign propaganda by the Reich, Herr Fritzsche received orders that in Germany, too, he should touch upon this subject in some of his broadcasts.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be in concluding the case of the Defendant Fritzsche?
DR. FRITZ: I think three-quarters of an hour at the most, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, after that the Tribunal will continue the case of the Defendant Bormann until 1 o’clock tomorrow.