Morning Session
[The Defendant Fritzsche resumed the stand.]
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Bench, the Defendant Fritzsche, toward the end of yesterday morning’s session, testified as to how he tried to aid persecuted persons, within the scope of his limited opportunities. In order to conclude this subject, and with the approval of the Prosecution, I submit Document Number Fritzsche-6, an affidavit of Count Westarp, which is to be found in my Document Book Number 2 on Pages 23 to 25, dated 15 June 1946. I beg the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the contents of this document.
Furthermore, as another piece of evidence, I should like to offer another affidavit, made by a Frau Krüger, Berlin, which is to be Document Number Fritzsche-8. This affidavit has not yet been included in my document book. However, the original was made by Frau Krüger in German as well as in English and both copies have been affirmed and sworn to. I should like to refer to the contents of this affidavit, especially to the last two paragraphs. From the last paragraph but one we can see that apart from individual cases Frau Krüger has a general knowledge of the defendant’s activities. And the last paragraph is quite interesting; it deals with the manner of life led by the Defendant Fritzsche.
Apart from that, I also refer here to the entire contents of this article and I ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of this document.
Finally, in this connection, I should like to refer to an affidavit made by Dr. Scharping which has been frequently quoted, Document Number Fritzsche-2, which is to be found in the Fritzsche Document Book Number 2, Pages 6 to 15. I refer particularly to Page 13 at the bottom of the page, and the top of Page 14.
Herr Fritzsche, I should like to put two more general questions to you on this topic. During the last period of the war, did you not try to find out something about the final fate of the Jews?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. I made the most of an opportunity to which I will refer briefly later on. I asked a colleague of Obergruppenführer Glücks, in Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, about the Jews. Briefly summarized, his answer was as follows: The Jews were under the special protection of the Reichsführer SS who wished to make a political deal with them. He looked upon them as a kind of hostages and he did not wish a single hair from their heads to be harmed.
DR. FRITZ: Some of the Prosecution’s Witnesses have asserted during this Trial that the German public knew about these murders. Now I just want to ask you, as a journalist who worked in the National Socialist State, what was, as far as you know, the attitude of the broad mass of the German people to the Jews? Did the people know about the murder of the Jews? Please be brief.
FRITZSCHE: Leaving out all those matters which have already been mentioned at this Trial, I should like to mention only a few observations which to me seem important. I shall omit the period shortly after the first World War, which has already been described, during which certain anti-Semitic feelings were popular in Germany. I should like to state only that in 1933 at the time of the Jewish boycott, which was organized by the NSDAP, the sympathies of the German people clearly turned again in favor of the Jews. For a number of years the Party tried hard to prevent the public from buying in Jewish stores. Finally they even had to resort to threats. A profound and decisive factor in this development was the promulgating of the Nuremberg Laws. As a result of these the fight against the Jews was taken for the first time out of the sphere of pure agitation, that is, the kind of agitation from which one could remain aloof, and shifted to the field of State Police.
At that time a deep feeling of fear ran through the German people, for now dissension spread even to individual families. At that time many human tragedies resulted, tragedies which were obvious to many, probably to everyone, and there was only one justification for these racial laws. There was only one excuse for them and one explanation; that was the assertion and the hope: Well, now that the separation of the two peoples is being carried out, although painfully, there will at last be an end to the wild and unbridled agitation; and due to this separation there will be peace where formerly only unrest reigned.
When the Jews were forced to wear the emblem of a star and when, for instance, in Berlin they were prohibited from occupying seats on streetcars, the German people openly took sides with the Jews and it happened again and again that Jews were ostentatiously offered seats. In this connection I heard several declarations by Dr. Goebbels, who was extremely bitter about this undesired effect of the marking of the Jews.
I, as a journalist who worked during that period, am firmly convinced that the German people were unaware of the mass murders of the Jews and assertions to that effect were considered rumors; and reports which reached the German people from outside were officially denied again and again. As these documents are not in my possession, I cannot quote from memory individual cases of denial; but one case I do remember with particular clearness. That was the moment when the Russians, after they recaptured Kharkov, started legal proceedings during which killing by gas was mentioned for the first time.
I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports and asked him about the facts. He stated he would have the matter investigated and would discuss it with Himmler and with Hitler. The next day he sent me notice of denial. This denial was not made public; and the reason stated was that in German legal proceedings it is necessary to state in a much plainer manner matters that need clarification. However, Dr. Goebbels explicitly informed me that the gas vans mentioned in the Russian legal proceeding were pure invention and that there was no actual proof to support it.
It was not without reason that the people who operated these vans were put under the ban of strictest secrecy. If the German people had learned of these mass murders, they would certainly no longer have supported Hitler. They would probably have sacrificed 5 million for a victory, but never would the German people have wished to bring about victory by the murder of 5 million people.
I should like to state further that this murder decree of Hitler’s seems to me the end of every race theory, every race philosophy, every kind of race propaganda, for after this catastrophe any further advocacy of race theory would be equivalent to approval in theory of further murder. An ideology in the name of which 5 million people were murdered is a theory which cannot continue to exist.
DR. FRITZ: Now I shall turn to a different topic. You are accused by the Prosecution of having incited atrocities, and that the results of your propaganda covered every phase of the conspiracy, including abnormal and inhuman treatment and behavior. In this connection I shall, therefore, have to ask you about the whole question of concentration camps.
Did you know that the concentration camps existed?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, the fact of their creation was announced publicly, I believe in 1933; and the concentration camps were mentioned later in official communiqués.
DR. FRITZ: What was the purpose of these camps in your opinion at that time?
FRITZSCHE: As far as I can recollect, the persons to be taken to these camps were those who could not be restrained from taking an active part against the new State. It was stated that the reason for the establishment of these camps was the abnormal internal political situation prevailing at that time: A weak center party and two strong extreme parties, one of which had now assumed power. Steps were taken to put matters on a proper legal basis. Only later was it mentioned that habitual criminals were also to be brought to the concentration camps to prevent them from reverting to crime.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the number of concentration camps which were established in the course of time?
FRITZSCHE: Before the war I had heard about three camps. During the war I suspected there were five to six; and the chart of a large number of camps which was exhibited here, was quite a surprise to me.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the number of prisoners in these camps?
FRITZSCHE: Nothing definite. At the beginning of the war, foreign reports mentioned millions of prisoners. At that time, together with a few journalists, I asked Obergruppenführer Heydrich to arrange an interview with members of the local and foreign press in order to discuss the matter. He did so. As far as I can recollect, he did not give any definite figures; but rather he compared them with the number of inmates at the prisons and penitentiaries in former days. This comparison did not seem to be disquieting. That was in the winter of 1940 or 1941.
DR. FRITZ: Did you not have any doubts as to the accuracy of those figures?
FRITZSCHE: Not at that time.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the conditions in the concentration camps? Did you speak to anyone who had ever been in a concentration camp?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. Even as early as 1933 or 1934 I spoke to a journalist who had been interned for a few weeks in the Oranienburg concentration camp, which was the old Oranienburg camp. He informed me that he himself had not been tortured but that he had seen and heard how others had been beaten and how their fingers had deliberately been squeezed in a door.
DR. FRITZ: Did you just accept these reports and do nothing about them?
FRITZSCHE: Quite the contrary! I made quite a row. This journalist—I believe his name was Stolzenberg, as far as I remember—did not wish to have his name mentioned. I wrote three letters, one to Dr. Goebbels—and he informed me that he would look into the matter—another letter to Frick as Minister of the Interior, and one to Göring as Prussian Prime Minister.
Senior officials from both these offices rang me up and told me that an investigation was being carried out. A short time afterwards, I heard that this old camp Oranienburg had been dissolved and that the commander had been sentenced to death. This was a report given to me by a Herr Von Lützow, who was press reporter for Diels or Diehl, who at that time was chief of the State Police.
DR. FRITZ: After this first successful protest against ill-treatment, did you receive any further reports about atrocities in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: No. I received no further reports about ill-treatment. On the contrary, I frequently made individual inquiries of members of the Gestapo or of the press section of the Reichsführer SS. All of the individuals whom I asked declared the following: Beastliness in the concentration camps only occurred in 1933 or at the beginning of 1934 at the time when these camps were guarded by members of the SA, who had no profession—that is to say, by those members of the SA who had the whole day at their disposal, and some of them were far from being the best type of men. In this connection I was told further that the 30th of June signified that a purge had taken place. The 30th of June had removed those Gauleiter and those SA leaders who had abused their power. They declared finally that the concentration camps were now being guarded by the SS, who had engaged professional guards, professional administrators and officials expert in dealing with criminal matters, and prison control officials. I was told that this would be a guarantee against abuses.
DR. FRITZ: Did you inquire about certain individuals who were in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: Of course, I inquired about well-known personalities such as Parson Niemöller or Schuschnigg, also about Leipkins, Hess’ private secretary who had been arrested; and in each case I received information which was reassuring.
DR. FRITZ: They, of course, may have been exceptions because they were well known and were prominent people. Did you not try to speak to other people who had been in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. In April of 1942 I met a former official of the Communist Party, whose name was Reintgen. We had been soldiers together for 6 months; and therefore he reported quite frankly to me, without keeping anything back. He said that he had been ill-treated in 1933, having had lashes on his back, but not afterwards. This information fully coincided with my observations.
DR. FRITZ: Did you yourself visit concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: No, I have never been inside the compound of a concentration camp. However, during the winter of 1944-45 I was frequently in the administration building near the Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen camp. Apart from that, I spoke to prisoners as often as I was able to do so, if I happened to see them either on the march or at work.
DR. FRITZ: With whom did you speak at Oranienburg?
FRITZSCHE: With a colleague of Obergruppenführer Glücks and twice also with him personally. They told me that the foreign reports regarding cruel treatment were false. They said that the treatment was not only humane but decidedly good, as after all, the prisoners were valuable laborers. I spoke at some length about the working hours, for at that time a rather silly decree had been issued about a general extension of working hours. The attitude taken by Glücks was very reasonable, namely, that longer working hours would not necessarily result in greater output. Therefore the working hours of 8 to 10 hours a day remained as, before. He did not mention anything about extermination through overwork. That is something I heard about for the first time in Court.
DR. FRITZ: And how about your questions which you put to the prisoners direct?
FRITZSCHE: Well, first of all, there was always a guard present, and quite naturally the prisoners were suspicious; but eventually I always received positive replies to positive questions. Briefly, the gist of these replies was always the same, that they had been unjustly arrested. Their food was really better than in prison and I frequently heard this phrase: “Well, anyway we are not soldiers here.” The weapons carried by the guards were only rifles or revolvers; I did not see any truncheons.
DR. FRITZ: Did you not become more and more suspicious about these concentration camps, after listening to foreign radio reports?
FRITZSCHE: Not for a long time, for the reasons which I gave yesterday. Reports from English members of Parliament regarding the Buchenwald case were first mentioned in April 1945. But this case is so very recent that for brevity’s sake I do not need to describe particulars of the incidents that occurred in the Ministry of Propaganda.
DR. FRITZ: How can you explain the fact that crimes and ill-treatment of the worst kind undoubtedly took place in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: I am on the horns of a frightful dilemma, since I heard the first reliable reports about these things here in prison. Only a part of these terrible conditions, which were found to exist, can be explained through the stoppage of traffic and communications at the end of the war. The rest is more than enough. Obviously, the decree for the secret murder of masses of people had brutalized to a terrible extent those people who were entrusted with the execution of this decree.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not know whether this explanation is of any value to us as evidence. We have already heard all about this matter. He has given us his explanation as to why he says he did not know.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have but two more questions I should like to put to the defendant.
Herr Fritzsche, it has been said here in Court that conditions in concentration camps were generally known to the German people. As a journalist, will you give us your opinion and the reasons on which it is based?
THE PRESIDENT: Has he not given us that already?
DR. FRITZ: No, I beg your pardon, Mr. President. He gave his opinion when it was a question of the ill-treatment and extermination of Jews, but on the topic of the extermination of Jews, I asked him...
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you are asking him what his opinion as a journalist was. I do not see that that is of any importance to us.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should be grateful if you would allow me to put the question, as this is my last question but one. I expect an answer from the defendant, an answer which would assist the Tribunal in arriving at a judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: On what matter do you want his opinion as a journalist?
DR. FRITZ: The Defendant Fritzsche would like to repeat a few statements such as some made, for instance, by Dr. Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may ask the question.
[Turning to the defendant.] Did you understand the question?
FRITZSCHE: I believe a confusion has arisen, inasmuch as I do not wish to quote Dr. Goebbels on this subject but rather in relation to our last series of questions which seem to me more important than the question you have just put to me now.
DR. FRITZ: In any event, I should like you to give me a brief answer to my question. Shall I repeat the question?
FRITZSCHE: Thank you, no. In this connection I should like to refer briefly to the statements which I already made about the murders; that there were many rumors but those rumors were denied. Undoubtedly an iron ring of silence surrounded these terrible events and the only thing I observed in the course of my work, and which appears to me to be important, is that in the RSHA and some of its branches there must have existed groups who worked systematically with the view of concealing these atrocities by issuing reassuring statements and denials to the offices which represented the public.
DR. FRITZ: Now I should like to put a last comprehensive question. In the course of your examination by me, you made statements about Hitler and his policies which were entirely different from those you made long ago in your radio broadcasts, et cetera. Can you tell us briefly the date and the reason for your change of opinion?
FRITZSCHE: I would like to answer this question very precisely. The first milestone on the road to this realization was not due to the German defeat, for right or wrong is independent of victory or defeat. The fact was that Hitler tried to use this defeat for the extermination of the German people, as Speer has now horribly confirmed and as I was able to observe during the last phase of the conflict in Berlin when, through deceit by raising false hopes, boys of 15, 14, 13, and 12 years of age were equipped with small arms to fight against tanks and called into battle, boys who otherwise might have been the hope for future reconstruction. Hitler found escape in death, leaving behind him the order to keep on fighting. He also left behind him the official report that he had died in battle.
I learned that he had committed suicide; and thus my last public statement, on 2 May 1945, was to let everybody know of this suicide, for I wanted to kill a Hitler legend in the bud.
Then, while in prison, I heard from a fellow prisoner, a German major named Sforner, that he had been arrested by the Gestapo, that he had been tortured in order to make him confess, and that in his presence, his wife had been beaten. That was the second milestone.
The third stage concerned another coprisoner, the world-famous geographer, General Niedermeier, who proved to me that the reasons given by Hitler for the attack on Russia were false, at least on one important point. After he had talked with the interpreter, he could tell me that in the decisive discussion between Molotov and Ribbentrop in 1941, Molotov had not put forth any new demands but that, rather, he demanded that the assurances which had been given in 1939 should be effective. Therefore, a part of the reasons given—and I stress this point—that our attack on Russia was to anticipate a Russian attack, was no longer valid.
The fourth factor was the proof submitted in Court here of the murder of 5 million Jews. I have already spoken about this matter.
I consider it only my duty to testify to still another statement, a statement which Dr. Goebbels made in my presence on Saturday, 21 April 1945. Dr. Goebbels, who was in a great state of utmost excitement, speaking about the last decisive break-through of the Russians near Berlin, said,
“After all, the German people did not want it otherwise. The German people by a great majority decided through a plebiscite on the withdrawal from the League of Nations and against a policy of yielding and chose, instead, a policy of courage and honor; thereby”—concluded Dr. Goebbels—“the German people themselves chose the war which they have now lost.”
These were the last words which I heard from Dr. Goebbels and these words are untrue. I declare under oath: Dr. Goebbels had never previously given such significance to that plebiscite. Never had he given it that interpretation. The exact opposite was the case. At the time of this plebiscite, the German people were explicitly given once again a solemn assurance of the will for peace on the part of Hitler and his associates.
Therefore, I am convinced that Hitler and at least some of his colleagues had deliberately lied to the people on decisive points, right from the beginning of their political career; and, something that is not so important to history, I personally felt deceived on these points, too.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the Defendant Fritzsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. STAHMER: Witness, did you ever hear or ascertain, at the beginning when the concentration camps were being organized, that in addition to the regular camps other so-called “wildcat camps” existed which had been established by the SA leaders without the knowledge of the competent authorities?
FRITZSCHE: No. I heard nothing about it at that time. I heard about this distinction in the concentration camps for the first time here in Court.
DR. STAHMER: On the basis of your present-day knowledge, can you assert whether the abuses which you described occurred in these “wildcat” concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: I can give you a very precise answer to that question. These abuses about which I learned occurred in the old camp Oranienburg, a camp situated in the Berliner Strasse. I do not know to which category that camp belonged. However, these abuses were stopped; and I emphasized in my testimony that, almost immediately after I sent my letter to the Prussian Prime Minister, I was called in by a ministerial counsellor or Ministerialdirektor, and I was assured that an investigation would be made—a promise which was kept—but in any case I do not remember whether a final report was sent me from this office.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In June 1934 the publication of Von Papen’s Marburg speech was forbidden. Is it correct to say that from that time onward, any statement on the part of the Defendant Von Papen could be published only with the previous approval of the Ministry of Propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: That is correct, and in even a closer sense. Confiscation of the Marburg speech, as I remember distinctly, was carried out at the instigation of Berndt, who later became Ministerialdirektor. This man drew Dr. Goebbels’ attention to the speech. With regard to any other of Papen’s announcements, the principle was that not even the Ministry of Propaganda had the right to release them for publication but, rather, that they had to be forwarded either to the Minister personally or to the Führer.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In your testimony you mentioned that you had known the Defendant Von Papen for some time and that you got to know him when you visited Turkey. Just when did you visit Turkey?
FRITZSCHE: In January, I believe it was 1944.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the purpose of your visit?
FRITZSCHE: I delivered a speech to the German colony in Istanbul and Ankara on the occasion of the 30th of January.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen have anything to do with this speech and with this festivity?
FRITZSCHE: No, less than nothing. I received an official request from Berlin to see to it that Herr Von Papen would not ostensibly depart before the celebration of the 30th of January, as he wanted to do. I did not attempt to persuade Herr Von Papen to stay and so he left his office in time to go skiing.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is all.
DR. THEODOR KLEFISCH (Counsel for SA): Witness, you just now said that it had been reported to you that at the end of the year 1933 and at the beginning of 1934 unemployed SA men were guarding certain concentration camps and that abuses were probably to be traced back to that fact. I have but one question: Who reported that to you? Who was the author of that report?
FRITZSCHE: The then press chief or press expert of Reichsführer SS Himmler, whose name was Gerhard Ratke.
DR. KLEFISCH: Thank you very much.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): Witness, the day before yesterday you stated that the Defendant Funk was not concerned with propaganda in the Propaganda Ministry but that in the main he was concerned with organizational and financial matters. Now I should like to ask you to answer several questions regarding the activities of the Defendant Funk in the Propaganda Ministry.
You know, Witness, that at the beginning there was a Press Department of the Reich Government and that it was a State institution. How long did this Press Department exist, and what became of it?
FRITZSCHE: It had existed for quite some time, at least up until March 1933, when it was a branch of the Foreign Office. From then on it became a branch of the Propaganda Ministry, and it had a dual mission to carry on: First of all to be the Press Department of this Ministry and secondly, to continue functioning as the Press Department for the Reich Government.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, can you tell me who, beginning with March of 1933—that is, from the incorporation of the Press Department into the Propaganda Ministry—was the chief of this Press Department and, for all practical purposes, was the chief of the press system? Was that Funk or was it someone else?
FRITZSCHE: No, that was Ministerial Counsellor Jahnke, successor to Ministerial Director Berndt. This Press Department was then divided into three sections: German press...
DR. SAUTER: I am not interested in that, Witness, I am interested only in knowing whether the chief of this department was the Defendant Funk or whether it is correct to say that he had nothing to do with these matters.
FRITZSCHE: Nominally, of course, he was the chief, but with the practical operation he had nothing to do. That was taken care of by Dr. Goebbels, Hahnke, and Jahnke.
DR. SAUTER: And later Berndt?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have another question. Who had the management of the press policy in the Propaganda Ministry? I am still referring to the State organ. Did the Defendant Funk have anything to do with it, or just who was it? Who directed the press policy?
FRITZSCHE: At that time Dr. Goebbels himself exercised that function. Later on it was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich.
DR. SAUTER: The Defendant Funk was State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry, or at least he had the title of State Secretary. Now, looking at this matter rather generally, I would be interested in knowing this: Did he, in fact, have the position of a State Secretary and exercise authority as such, or did another official exercise the function of State Secretary as the regular deputy of the Minister?
FRITZSCHE: As a matter of course, naturally, he had the position, the power, the prestige, and the salary of a State Secretary; but the practical work was distributed a little differently.
DR. SAUTER: Just how was it handled?
FRITZSCHE: I have already mentioned that. Practically, Funk concerned himself with organization and finance as they applied to the gigantic cultural concern which was being developed at that time; whereas the actual policy was set up by Dr. Goebbels with the chief of his ministerial office, Hahnke, who was the successor of Funk as State Secretary.
DR. SAUTER: I have one final question, Witness, which refers to another topic.
Do you know what Minister Dr. Goebbels, in November of 1938 or later, said about the Jewish pogroms of 9 November 1938, with regard to Defendant Funk?
FRITZSCHE: Much later Dr. Goebbels stated in my presence that sometimes radical measures would just simply have to be taken, for instance, when Funk had constantly declared that the Jews could not be eliminated from economic life; but he, Dr. Goebbels, had to prove to Funk that it could be done by organizing the riots of 8 November.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection did he say anything about the fact that this Jewish action, for which Dr. Goebbels was responsible, was also instigated with the purpose of discrediting Dr. Funk and confronting him with a fait accompli? Did he state anything like that?
FRITZSCHE: That was the sense of the answer that I just gave you.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions; Mr. President.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): Herr Fritzsche, in this Court we have heard what grave accusations are made against the Defendant Raeder because of an article in the newspaper Völkischer Beobachter. The article I refer to is “Churchill Sinks the Athenia,” which was published on 23 October 1939.
Mr. President, this is Document 3260-PS, or Exhibit GB-218.
I should like to put a few questions pertaining to the Athenia case. Herr Fritzsche, when did the Propaganda Ministry receive the report about the torpedoing of the Athenia, and through what channels?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot give you the date from memory, but I do know that we received this report by wireless; that is, we listened in to a foreign broadcast.
DR. SIEMERS: This wireless report came in shortly after the sinking of the Athenia, is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Without doubt.
DR. SIEMERS: Did the Propaganda Ministry get in touch with the High Command of the Navy in order to learn the details of this matter?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I personally did that because I happened to have a liaison officer from the Navy High Command in my office for censorship advice.
DR. SIEMERS: Whom did you get in touch with in the High Command of the Navy, and what did you learn?
FRITZSCHE: First of all, I spoke to the officer who was with me, whom I have just mentioned, Kapitänleutnant Hahn. Then he telephoned, and in all probability I phoned, too, to the OKM (the High Command of the Navy). As far as I recall, I spoke to Korvettenkapitän Wolf.
DR. SIEMERS: And what did Korvettenkapitän Wolf tell you?
FRITZSCHE: He told me already at this early stage that no German U-boat was in the area in question.
DR. SIEMERS: I should like to remind you that the Athenia was sunk on 4 September 1939.
What did the Propaganda Ministry do after the High Command of the Navy had stated that it was not a German U-boat which had sunk the ship?
FRITZSCHE: Then this report was announced.
DR. SIEMERS: Herr Fritzsche, how did it happen that about 6 to 7 weeks later the article, “Churchill Sinks the Athenia,” appeared, which was published on 23 October 1939? Shall I show you the article?
FRITZSCHE: Thank you, no. I remember this incident especially well, as I have checked my memory about it since this case was mentioned again for the first time here in the Court.
I know that Hitler himself ordered this article to be written, giving detailed instructions. The order to write the article came through two different channels: First, through a telephone call by the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich; and secondly through a telephone call by Dr. Goebbels or one of his officials—I am not able to tell you which of the two. This order was to be transmitted to the Völkischer Beobachter.
Now we come to the circumstances on account of which I remember the details. When I told one of my co-workers to inform the Völkischer Beobachter, he came back to me with the report that it would not be necessary because the Völkischer Beobachter had already heard the necessary details directly from the Führer’s headquarters.
DR. SIEMERS: When was this order given by Hitler, or rather, Goebbels?
FRITZSCHE: The day before it appeared, I assume.
DR. SIEMERS: Did any office in the High Command of the Navy have any connection with this article?
FRITZSCHE: According to my knowledge, no.
DR. SIEMERS: Before this article was published, did you speak with Grossadmiral Raeder about this article, or did you advise him of the order given by Hitler in this direction?
FRITZSCHE: No, I believe that the High Command of the Navy had no knowledge of the article at all. The article originated in the manner that I have just described to you.
DR. SIEMERS: Did you at any time speak with anyone in the High Command of the Navy, or with Grossadmiral Raeder about this case?
FRITZSCHE: Only here in the prison.
DR. SIEMERS: Herr Fritzsche, is it correct that in September of 1939 the Times claimed that in Czechoslovakia Germans had murdered 10,000 Czechs at Prague, including the Lord Mayor?
FRITZSCHE: I do not know whether that was published in the Times, but at any rate it was published in the News Chronicle.
DR. SIEMERS: What did the Propaganda Ministry undertake to do thereupon?
FRITZSCHE: German and foreign journalists were taken to Prague. If I am not mistaken, one of the foreign journalists who went along to Prague on that trip is present in this courtroom.
DR. SIEMERS: What did these foreign journalists find out?
FRITZSCHE: They had an interview with the Lord Mayor of Prague, who allegedly had been killed; they traveled about the country, and they reported accordingly.
DR. SIEMERS: According to that, the report was clearly untrue?
FRITZSCHE: At that time this report was shown to be quite false. However, I must add that since Monday of this week, since the testimony given by Herr Von Neurath, it has become quite clear to me that under cover of this great and effective denial an action of arrests was actually carried out in Czechoslovakia. I must add this; I have to clarify this. And if...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Siemers, how does this affect Raeder?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that in a certain way it is a parallel case to the article in the Völkischer Beobachter, which the Prosecution is stressing for reasons not quite clear to me.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal thinks the evidence is not competent.
DR. SIEMERS: Herr Fritzsche, do you know what Dr. Goebbels’ attitude was to Grossadmiral Raeder?
FRITZSCHE: From the few statements which Goebbels made about Grossadmiral Raeder it could be seen that he had an adverse attitude toward him. His reason, frequently expressed, was Raeder’s negative attitude toward the Party and the Party’s wishes and his positive attitude on Church matters, including the protection which he accorded Navy clergymen who were subject to attacks on the part of the Party.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I have no further questions.
DR. HORN: Witness, you stated that a General Niedermeier was present at the conference which took place between Molotov and Ribbentrop. Just where did you get your information?
FRITZSCHE: There is a mistake contained in your question. I did not say that General Niedermeier participated in this conference. What I did say was—and I shall be a little more explicit—that during my imprisonment I ran into this General Niedermeier who, for weeks or months just before that time, had shared a cell with the interpreter who had the task of interpreting the discussion of Molotov and Ribbentrop.
DR. HORN: Did General Niedermeier give you the name of this interpreter?
FRITZSCHE: Without doubt, but I did not try to remember it.
DR. HORN: I have one more question. After the last discussion on 30 August 1939 between the British Ambassador Sir Nevile Henderson and the then Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop, in which the conditions for negotiating with Poland were made public, these conditions were published the next day in the Daily Telegraph; and allegedly this issue of the paper was recalled. What do you know about this article?
FRITZSCHE: First of all, I should like to correct another error which has found its way into your question. On the following morning in question, the Daily Telegraph did not publish the conditions or the note, but only published a report that during the preceding night the British Government had been in consultation on the German demands to Poland, conditions which had been transmitted to them by their Ambassador in Berlin. Therefore it could be seen from this article—at any rate, it could not be interpreted in any other way—that these conditions were known in London.
DR. HORN: Thank you very much.
DR. THOMA: Herr Fritzsche, you stated yesterday that the Völkischer Beobachter was in direct contact with the Führer and with the Führer’s headquarters throughout the war. What individual members on the staff of the Völkischer Beobachter were you referring to?
FRITZSCHE: I was not especially referring to people in the Völkischer Beobachter; I was thinking mainly of people at the Führer’s headquarters. So, Dr. Dietrich and his delegates made it their business always to call the Völkischer Beobachter directly.
DR. THOMA: You know that Rosenberg was no longer the chief editor of the Völkischer Beobachter after 1937?
FRITZSCHE: I am of the conviction that even before that time he held that position in name only.
DR. THOMA: Witness, can you tell the Court, as far as the so-called actions of the Party were concerned—for instance the burning of the books, the boycott in April of 1933, the pogrom in November of 1938—who the driving force in all of these actions was?
FRITZSCHE: Today I am of the firm conviction that it was Dr. Goebbels.
DR. THOMA: Witness, do you know that Goebbels, whenever Hitler was in Berlin, always was Hitler’s guest?
FRITZSCHE: That does not hold quite true. Years before the war Dr. Goebbels saw Hitler, without doubt, only rarely.
DR. THOMA: I have another question. Do you know that Goebbels had a direct telephone line to Hitler?
FRITZSCHE: That is news to me. This is the first time I heard of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Thoma, this has nothing to do with Rosenberg, has it, the fact that Goebbels had a direct line to Hitler?
DR. THOMA: Mr. President, I wanted only to ask Fritzsche by that whether Rosenberg had the same connection with Hitler as Goebbels.
FRITZSCHE: I do not know what telephone lines Rosenberg had, but I know and I have heard frequently that Rosenberg seldom visited Hitler.
DR. THOMA: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other defendant’s counsel who wants to ask questions?
[There was no response.]
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will recess.
[A recess was taken.]
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
GENERAL R. A. RUDENKO (Chief Prosecutor for the U.S.S.R.): I should like to begin the cross-examination in determining the role which German propaganda played in the criminal activity of the Hitler Government. Tell me, do you admit that German propaganda disseminated racial theories and introduced into the minds of the German people the ideas of the superiority of the German race—that means, the idea of the “master race”? Do you admit that?
FRITZSCHE: The question touches upon two problems. May I reply to both of them? I admit that German propaganda spread the racial theory, but I deny that German propaganda spread the theory of the “master race.”
GEN. RUDENKO: You do not admit it?
FRITZSCHE: No.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You admit that the German propaganda incited in the German people racial hatred toward the Jews and propagated the necessity of their extermination?
FRITZSCHE: Once again two problems are contained in this question. May I answer to both?
GEN. RUDENKO: I beg your pardon, you do not have to emphasize this. Just answer the question; if there are two, answer two.
FRITZSCHE: I admit, as I have done in my answer to your first question, that German propaganda spread the racial theory but I deny most emphatically that German propaganda had made preparations for, or had called for, the mass murder of Jews.
GEN. RUDENKO: But you do not deny that German propaganda preached to the German people racial hatred toward Jews? You do not deny that?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot even affirm that without reserve. That is the reason why, in my answer to the second question, I made a slight distinction. German propaganda, and under that I understand official German propaganda, did not even preach racial hatred. It only spoke about racial distinctions, and that is something quite different; but I will admit that there was a certain type of German propaganda which went beyond that and which did preach the clear-cut and primitive racial hatred.
GEN. RUDENKO: You will admit that the activity of German propaganda was also directed against the Church?
FRITZSCHE: No, even that I have to deny.
GEN. RUDENKO: Will you pretend that the German propaganda was not directed toward the persecution of the Church?
FRITZSCHE: That is exactly what I wanted to say. The official German propaganda did not persecute the churches. On the other hand, in order to clear up this point for you, here again there was an unofficial, illegal propaganda which preached against the Church. However, the State and its organizations, during the time of the struggle with the Church, made many utterances and declarations which might have created an impression as if they had participated in the struggle against the churches. By this I mean the trials against clergymen which were given sensational importance.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You will admit that the propaganda conducted by the Hitlerite Government in connection with the so-called problem of the expansion of the Lebensraum of Germany, cultivated and developed in the German nation militaristic tendencies.
FRITZSCHE: I deny that, too, and most emphatically.
GEN. RUDENKO: Do you admit that German propaganda used provocative methods, lies, and slander in order to camouflage the aggressive plans of the Hitlerite Government?
FRITZSCHE: Mr. Prosecutor, it is most difficult for me to answer that question after all I have voluntarily testified to in this courtroom yesterday. If I am to make the attempt to summarize very briefly, then I shall have to say this: I maintain that the German propaganda gave the German nation in the case of every individual action which was carried out, from the occupation of the Rhineland to the attack against the Soviet Union, a picture of the events which, among the Germans, must have created the impression that we were in the right. On the other hand, however, I myself—and I explained already when this happened—had recognized that the structure of these arguments had a basis which was shaky in various respects.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is to say, on the basis of lies and slander?
FRITZSCHE: No. Please let me apologize, but your way of putting it does not appear to be quite factual enough.
GEN. RUDENKO: You will persist then in denying that German propaganda used methods of slander and lies; you do deny this?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, certainly, I deny it, based on my thorough knowledge of German propaganda; and I should like you to permit me to give you a very brief explanation in this connection.
GEN. RUDENKO: Please, will you give an explanation, but directly, to my question?
FRITZSCHE: But of course. Looking at it today, it was the misfortune of the German people that its propaganda, particularly with regard to those details which can be checked and controlled, was so clean that it was completely overlooked that in its three basic principles there were three fundamental mistakes. I cannot be more explicit.
GEN. RUDENKO: What kind of mistakes are you speaking about?
FRITZSCHE: The first, the trust in Adolf Hitler’s humaneness, which was destroyed by the order to murder 5 million people; the second, the trust in the ethical purity of the system, which was destroyed by the orders to apply torture; and the third, the absolute trust in Adolf Hitler’s peaceful intentions, shaken by what has been brought up in this courtroom.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, we shall revert to these questions later when we speak about your personal participation in the conducting of the German propaganda. I should like to ask you now the following: Of course you were aware that in the OKW there was a special section for propaganda, which was subordinate directly to Defendant Jodl?
FRITZSCHE: That was known to me, but you are mistaken if you are under the impression that that department was under Defendant Jodl. It was under the jurisdiction of General Von Wedel and he was succeeded by Standartenführer Gunter d’Alquen.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I do not wish to deal with this subject any longer, at the moment. I am interested in something else; what were the relations between the Ministry of Propaganda and the OKW?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot tell you what they were between the Ministry of Propaganda and the OKW in general, but I can give you detailed information about the relationship between the Ministry of Propaganda and the Propaganda Department of the OKW which you have just mentioned. A permanent representative from that department worked in the ministerial office of Dr. Goebbels. He participated daily in the ministry conferences which I have already mentioned once, he who was really always to be found in close proximity to Dr. Goebbels.
GEN. RUDENKO: Who gave the propaganda tasks and the directives to the OKW?
FRITZSCHE: I can only imagine that the propaganda tasks of the OKW were drawn up according to Dr. Goebbels’ wishes and to the instructions of the Chief of the OKW, which was Keitel or Jodl.
GEN. RUDENKO: How was the general German propaganda applied with regard to the propaganda tasks and measures taken by the OKW?
FRITZSCHE: I am afraid I do not quite understand the meaning of your question.
GEN. RUDENKO: How was the general German propaganda brought into line with the propaganda measures taken by the OKW?
FRITZSCHE: Very probably it was just fitted into the propaganda measures adopted by the OKW, because Dr. Goebbels was so strong a personality that he would not have tolerated any disregard of his propagandist principles.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I would like to have your answer to the following question: What relations existed between the Ministry of Propaganda and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs?
FRITZSCHE: Sometimes relations were a bit tense, but during the later years of the war a representative from the Foreign Ministry participated always in the ministry conferences of the Propaganda Ministry.
GEN. RUDENKO: What part did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs play in the carrying out of propaganda measures especially in connection with the preparation and execution of aggressive wars?
FRITZSCHE: May I say the following to this: At the very beginning of an action of war, a representative from the Foreign Office used to appear with a completed document book, a White Book. I know nothing about the origin of these White Books. At any rate, they were not prepared in the Ministry of Propaganda. In a few cases I later received some knowledge of their compilation in the Foreign Office.
GEN. RUDENKO: Would it be correct to make the following deduction: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs participated directly and actively in the preparation of propaganda tasks and directives; is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: No doubt that is true because the Foreign Minister reserved for himself the decisive word with reference to propaganda which was connected with foreign policy or any propaganda which went abroad.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did you have in mind Defendant Ribbentrop when you just replied and when you spoke about the role of the Foreign Minister?
FRITZSCHE: Of course.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. You acknowledge and maintain that Defendant Ribbentrop personally gave out the propaganda orders for explaining the attack on the Soviet Union as a preventive war?
FRITZSCHE: That question cannot be answered with “yes” or “no” but with a very brief description of the facts. The then Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop received, in the early morning hours of the day when the Russian campaign started, the foreign press correspondents and the German press. He put a White Book before them and he went on to explain in a speech what the situation was and concluded with the following emphatic statement:
“For all these reasons Germany was forced to begin this attack against the Soviet Union in order to forestall a Soviet attack. I ask you, gentlemen of the press, to please present the facts in this manner.”
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to determine by this that the propaganda tasks were given by Defendant Ribbentrop himself. Do you admit it?
FRITZSCHE: I beg to apologize, but I have admitted exactly what I have said. Your last question is a conclusion based on what I have said, and to that I do not want to agree.
GEN. RUDENKO: However, replying to my previous question you spoke about the decisive role of Defendant Ribbentrop in questions concerning the carrying out of the foreign policy propaganda; is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: Perfectly correct.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well. It is enough; let us skip that question. Tell me now what were the relations between the Ministry of Propaganda and the so-called Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories? Please explain to me in this connection how these two Ministries collaborated and what the relations were between them?
FRITZSCHE: There was a permanent liaison officer who was a member both of the Eastern Ministry and the Ministry of Propaganda; and beyond that, there was an institution which had been founded by both Ministries jointly and which was jointly administrated by them. It was the institution called “Vineta,” which dealt with the entire propaganda in the East.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, I understand. By what order—or who prepared the propaganda slogans, as you called them in Germany, which were intended for the occupied territories? Who planned and prepared them?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot tell you under oath, because I am not sure about it, but it is my assumption that they were developed based on the existing principles of general propaganda by Dr. Tauber who was mentioned, and his associates, in this Vineta institute.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. But apparently you are aware of the fact and will confirm that the leading influence of the Ministry of Propaganda has been maintained in all these measures.
FRITZSCHE: Quite definitely. Indubitably the Ministry of Propaganda had the superior initiative here and the greater influence.
GEN. RUDENKO: That is clear. Now tell me, what kind of influence did the Defendant Bormann have on German propaganda? What role did he play in this respect?
FRITZSCHE: That role was unusually great. I know that it is somewhat frowned upon when statements are made here about a man who presumably is dead. In the interests of the historic truth, however, I shall nevertheless have to tell you the following ...
GEN. RUDENKO: We do not know yet whether Bormann is dead. We know only that he is not present on the defendants’ bench; but he is, however, one of the defendants. Go on, please.
FRITZSCHE: The influence of the Defendant Bormann was unusually strong not only in all the other fields but also in the propaganda sector. It became apparent in the following:
First, in the general type of Party agitation which I mentioned yesterday, that of the most radical trend. A teleprint message from Bormann to Dr. Goebbels with, shall we say, the following contents: I heard complaints from Party circles regarding this, that, or the other, would always be the cause of a rapid acceleration of Dr. Goebbels’ entire machinery.
Second—and this is something which I cannot express under oath in other words—Dr. Goebbels was quite clearly afraid of Martin Bormann. And he always tried scrupulously to justify in Bormann’s eyes any actions of his which might have been misinterpreted by radical elements in the Party.
GEN. RUDENKO: Perhaps you will tell us who else of the defendants who were not named here during my cross-examination actively participated in the propaganda activities, and in what way. Maybe you would rather not tell us anything about the defendants who are present here.
FRITZSCHE: I certainly would rather not, but I shall answer.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, please.
FRITZSCHE: By the way, a very favorable influence on propaganda was exercised by one of the offices of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. Whether he was responsible for it in person I do not know, but here are the facts: During the struggle for realistic news service which I mentioned yesterday, I repeatedly met with resistance from the Party and the Foreign Office; but I found the support of a department of the RSHA, the name of which I have forgotten, most useful. This department used to issue reports about the general frame of mind or temper of the German people, and these reports were distributed to various supreme authorities in the Reich. In these reports showing the mood of the people there was frequent praise for realistic news, the very thing which had been combated by the other two parties which I have mentioned.
GEN. RUDENKO: You just mentioned the office of Defendant Kaltenbrunner. Who else of the defendants could you name?
FRITZSCHE: None of the others played a part in German propaganda.
GEN. RUDENKO: Defendant Hess is not present here, but did he have any influence or not?
FRITZSCHE: Most unfortunately not.
GEN. RUDENKO: Why do you say “unfortunately”?
FRITZSCHE: During the period when he was still in office, he fulfilled a very beneficial task. He was, shall we say, the “complaint department” for all shortcomings in the Party and the State. I wish he could have continued...
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, there is no use to speak about it in detail. Now, let us go into the explanation of your personal participation and your personal role in the field of German propaganda. I should like you to state exactly what relations you had with Dr. Goebbels. Yesterday you spoke about it in detail, but here I should like you to state it briefly.
FRITZSCHE: The briefest formula is this: Personally, little relationship; officially, in the course of time, more and more relationship.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes. Do you know the name of General Field Marshal Ferdinand Schörner?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I know the name.
GEN. RUDENKO: I should like to read into the record an extract from his testimony. Mr. President, I am submitting this document (USSR-472) as Exhibit USSR-472.
[Turning to the defendant.] We are going to hand you this document in a minute. In order to facilitate the reading of it, the paragraphs which I am going to read here are underlined in red pencil. I am going to read the first excerpt; will you please follow the text—I quote:
“Everybody, including myself, was aware that Fritzsche was not only a close associate of Goebbels, but was also a favorite of his. He gained Goebbels’ sympathy by frequently copying him in his political activities and quoting Goebbels in his speeches. Goebbels, in his printed and verbal speeches, referred to the conclusions and prognoses made by Fritzsche as having the force of official declarations.”
Please tell me, Defendant Fritzsche, is that in accordance with reality?
FRITZSCHE: May I ask you which quotation you have been reading, 1, 2, or 3?
GEN. RUDENKO: I have already told you, it is quotation Number 1.
FRITZSCHE: According to my text, the first one says:
“Everybody, including myself, was aware that Fritzsche was not only a close associate of Goebbels, but was also, a favorite of his.”
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, that is quite correct. That is exactly what I quoted. I am asking you, is that in accordance with reality?
FRITZSCHE: I should not have expressed it like that, and I think it is a question of taste. This statement...
GEN. RUDENKO: I understand.
FRITZSCHE: Just a moment. I have something to add.
The expression “close associate of Goebbels” is wrong, objectively seen, and “favorite”—well, I do not think so.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, very well. Let us go further.
You enjoyed the complete confidence of Goebbels and you carried out your duties in the Ministry of Propaganda entrusted with fullest powers. Do you admit that?
FRITZSCHE: Absolutely.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Thus, enjoying the confidence and disposing of full powers, in your utterances you fully mirrored the demands of the Hitler Government which were made tasks of German propaganda; is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, to the exact extent which I described yesterday.
GEN. RUDENKO: Now, I should like to read into the record some extracts from your testimony of 12 September 1945. I am submitting this document (USSR-474) as Exhibit USSR-474. I am going to read into the record Excerpt Number 1.
FRITZSCHE: May I have the document?
GEN. RUDENKO: Certainly, it will be handed to you immediately. Will you please follow my quotation of Excerpt Number 1. It is underlined in red pencil. I am reading:
“During a long time I was one of the leaders of German propaganda.”
I skip a few lines and further read:
“I must say that Goebbels valued me as a convinced National Socialist and a capable journalist so that I was considered his confidential aid in the German propaganda machine.”
Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: Mr. Prosecutor, that is not correct. I know that I have signed this report but at the very moment when I signed it in Moscow I stated:
“You can do what you like with that record. If you publish it, then nobody in Germany will believe it and no intelligent person in other countries either because this is not my language.”
I state that not a single one of the questions contained in this report was put to me in that same form and I go on to declare that not a single one of the answers in that record was given by me in that form and I signed it for reasons which I will explain to you in detail if you want me to.
GEN. RUDENKO: You therefore do not confirm these statements?
FRITZSCHE: No, only the signature is true.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right, let us say only the signature is true.
Well, we want to bear in mind that in this quotation which I just read and which you deny, it is said that Goebbels valued you as a National Socialist and a capable journalist and that therefore you were a trustworthy person in the German propaganda machine. This is the essence of the quotation; is that right? Do you deny this? Just a minute please. I am going to remind you...
FRITZSCHE: Yes, General, I admit that, I admit these facts.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, then the quotation was correct, was it not?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well then, what else are we speaking about? That means you do corroborate this statement?
FRITZSCHE: I am talking about the record which has been put before me in its entirety.
GEN. RUDENKO: At present I am questioning you with particular reference to this quotation which I just read into the record. You are not going to deny it? You admit it?
FRITZSCHE: I will not confirm the quotation but I will confirm once more the contents which you have just summarized again.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. The sense is not different from the actual quotation, but results from it. I should like to remind you of an excerpt...
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. What is it you are saying, Defendant? Are you saying that you did not sign this document or that you did?
FRITZSCHE: Mr. President, I signed the document, although its contents did not correspond with my own statements.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you do that?
FRITZSCHE: I gave that signature after very severe solitary confinement which had lasted for several months; and I wrote that signature because one of my fellow prisoners, with whom I came into contact once, had told me that once every month a court was pronouncing sentences based merely on such records and without interrogation; and I hoped that in this manner I would at least achieve being sentenced and thus terminate my confinement.
So as not to be misunderstood I should like to emphasize that no force was used and that I was treated very humanely, even if my detention was very severe.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Of course, you never thought, Defendant Fritzsche, that after all you had done you would be sent to a sanatorium? It is obvious that you had to land in a prison and a prison is always a prison. This was just an aside, however.
I should like to ask you about the following: You stated that in 1945 you signed this because of a very strict regime to which you were subjected; very well—when you arrived in Nuremberg you were interrogated on 3 November 1945 here in Nuremberg by General Alexandrov; is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: So that is correct? Very well. I should like to remind you of some of your answers. You were put the following question—on 12 November 1945 questions were put to you and you replied. Do you remember these statements?
You answered, “I have very often been interrogated and I do not know what statements and testimony are in question now.”
Thereupon, General Alexandrov submitted to you your testimony of 12 September and you answered him, “I am fully aware of this document.”
You were asked, “I should like you to peruse this document. Do you remember these statements?”
You said, “Of course, there is no doubt about it.”
And further: “Do you corroborate this document, which you perused and which was signed by you?”
And you replied, “Of course.”
Do you remember these statements which you made in Nuremberg?
FRITZSCHE: In the statement which you have quoted, all those passages are missing where I stated again and again that the record was put before me complete and finished for the purpose of obtaining my signature. I wished to make 20 or 30 alterations. Some of them were granted but passages were missing wherein I said in Nuremberg that some of the answers in that protocol contained a certain amount of truth but that none of them actually do represent my own answers.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I should now like to remind you of an extract from your statement of 7 January 1946.
Your Honors, this is Document 3469-PS. It is not in my book of documents as it was submitted by the Counsel for the Defense. I am going to quote from that document; it is a very short passage.
[Turning to the defendant.] This is Paragraph 39 of your statement:
“Once Goebbels tried to coerce me into submitting my texts for perusal. I refused this request and explained that usually I dictated a short résumé of my speech immediately before my broadcast and consequently, so to say, improvised my speeches. He said it was all right but on condition that if he would wish it, I should at least speak on specific, given themes.”
Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: Does that not indicate the confidence Goebbels had in you? Is that not right?
FRITZSCHE: No doubt he had a great deal of confidence in me, and I did not deny it.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. Let us proceed.
In this very same document, which I have just mentioned to you, that is to say, in your statement of 7 January 1946, in Paragraph 35 there is the following sentence—I think it was written by your own hand. It was in reply to some of the questions put by your counsel. You say, “More and more I became the only official authority in the Ministry in the field of radio communication.”
Is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Unfortunately I did not hear the end of your question but you have quoted the passage correctly and I have written it.
GEN. RUDENKO: So, it does correspond to facts?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, absolutely.
GEN. RUDENKO: Well, you therefore will admit that in the German propaganda machinery you occupied the most prominent position after Goebbels?
FRITZSCHE: No, my previous answer does not contain such a statement.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am asking you that now.
FRITZSCHE: I will admit that I had a most influential position in German radio, of which I was the head.
If you now put a new question, asking who held the second position in the entire set-up of propaganda after Dr. Goebbels, I will reply: Dr. Dietrich, the State Secretary, or Dr. Naumann, the ...
GEN. RUDENKO: Excuse me just a minute, please. I did not say the second position; I only said the most influential position. Are you going to deny this?
FRITZSCHE: I have no objection to your use of the word “influential,” but it does not change my answer.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well, “influential position,” if you like. That is still stronger. Let us proceed, however.
In the same statement of 7 January you wrote—it is contained in Paragraph 15:
“During the entire period from 1933 to 1945 the task of the ‘German Press Department’ was the supervision of the local press and supplying it with directives... More than 2,300 German newspapers were thus supervised.”
And then:
“In the execution of this task given to me by Dr. Goebbels, in accordance with instructions of the Ministry of Propaganda, my activity encompassed the entire news and information system of the German press and radio.”
Is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: I do not know whether you have quoted the last sentence correctly, but I have certainly fully recognized the first sentences. It is my affidavit Document 3469-PS. That corresponds word for word with the truth.
SEN. RUDENKO: Quite correct. Please tell me this: You organized in the German Press Department, the head of which you were, the Schnelldienst, the so-called speed service, which supplied the German press with provocative material. Do you admit that?
FRITZSCHE: If you will eliminate the word “provocative” and replace it with the word “propaganda” material, then I will admit it.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. The Tribunal will consider this. We are not going to argue about it.
Now, the last question from this group of questions: Tell me, were your broadcasts on the radio, which were presented with “Hans Fritzsche Speaks,” considered official Government broadcasts?
FRITZSCHE: I explained this subject to you yesterday. Actually, they were a private work of my own; but the private work, publicly audible, of a Ministerialdirektor of the Ministry of Propaganda and the head of the German radio system will, of course, be regarded as semi-official, though not fully official; and this fact I had to consider, and I did consider it.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. Now, I should like again to revert to the testimony of Ferdinand Schörner, which I have already submitted to the Tribunal as Exhibit USSR-472. I should like to quote Paragraph Number 2. Do you find it, Defendant Fritzsche?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am going to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, the Tribunal would like to see the whole of this document, or at any rate would like to see the questions to which these are answers.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, this document has been submitted to you in full.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see. You mean that what we have in English here are only the parts that have been translated into English?
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, that is quite correct. I am going to read into the record Extract Number 2:
“I am fully aware that Fritzsche was a prominent collaborator of the Ministry of Propaganda and that he was extremely popular in National Socialist circles and among the German people. He gained great popularity, especially by his weekly war political radio commentaries on the international situation. I often heard Fritzsche’s broadcasts in peacetime as well as during the war; and I perceived his broadcasts, which were filled with fanatical devotion to the Führer, as directives from the Party and the Government.”
Do you agree with this evaluation?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot raise any objection to this quotation, but beyond that...
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, is the document sworn?
GEN. RUDENKO: This document was put into official form in accordance with the processes which are in use in the Soviet Union.
THE PRESIDENT: Where was it taken?
GEN. RUDENKO: In Moscow.
THE PRESIDENT: The man who made the statement—was he free or was he in prison?
GEN. RUDENKO: He was at the time a prisoner of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the man who is alleged to have made the statement sign it?
GEN. RUDENKO: Of course, it was signed by him.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
GEN. RUDENKO: Thank you. And so you...
FRITZSCHE: May I add that it is known to me that on distant battle fronts or, for example, with German colonies abroad, my radio speeches were considered, shall we say, as a political compass.
GEN. RUDENKO: Yes, I understand. I should like to put to you another document which I will ask you to peruse.
Your Honors, I am submitting as Exhibit USSR-471 the testimony of Hans Voss.
Defendant Fritzsche, do you know this name, Vice Admiral Hans Voss?
FRITZSCHE: I know the name, but not the man personally.
DR. FRITZ: I apologize, Mr. President. It may be that the statement of General Field Marshal Schörner does not deserve too much attention, but at any rate I am unable to ascertain from the document the place where it was taken.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko says that it was taken at Moscow.
DR. FRITZ: But the record, the protocol itself, does not show that; and then I have noticed also that the photostatic copy which I have here does not show the signature of the Field Marshal. It just says “signed.” Later on in the right margin a handwritten signature has been affixed, but I do not know whether this document is admissible from a legal point of view.
THE PRESIDENT: You can see the original and compare it.
GEN. RUDENKO: I am speaking about the Document USSR-471, which is a written statement by Hans Voss. Please look at the Excerpt Number 1, which is underlined; I quote:
“Fully devoted to Hitler and the National Socialist Party, Fritzsche rendered priceless services in helping to spread National Socialism throughout Germany.”
Is that in accordance with reality?
FRITZSCHE: Well, at least I will not object.
GEN. RUDENKO: In other words, you are in accord with it?
FRITZSCHE: As I told you, I do not object, but I do not want to say by that that I concur.
GEN. RUDENKO: On the other hand, you do not deny this?
FRITZSCHE: No, I say for the third time that I do not raise any objection.
GEN. RUDENKO: Very well. I should now like to question you regarding your attitude toward the racial theory. You gave yesterday a detailed explanation in this connection to your counsel, so that I am going to put to you only two or three questions, and I should like you to reply briefly.
Did you agree with this racial theory?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, and precisely to the extent which I described to you yesterday.
GEN. RUDENKO: All right. In a radio broadcast on 6 April 1940 you spoke about Poland.
Your Honors, this is Document USSR-496. I am not going to read this document as I do not want to propagate the views contained in it, but I should like the defendant to peruse this document.
Please will you look at Excerpt Number 1 of this document. It is underlined in red pencil. This refers to your evaluation of the Polish nation. I simply should like to ask you about this speech of yours.
FRITZSCHE: It is impossible for me to recognize a radio speech of mine when I see an extract of only 20 lines, considering that I have spoken about a thousand times, as I said yesterday. In that case, you will have to let me have the full speech so that I can recognize my line of thought at the time.
GEN. RUDENKO: Did you not examine the document? This is a full text of your utterance which took place on 6 February 1940 on radio station, Deutschland Sender.
FRITZSCHE: General, there are 20 lines here. They begin with the words, “Considerable effort was necessary to...”
GEN. RUDENKO: That is enough, all right. There is no need in further quoting. That is the document to which I am referring. I am asking you, is that your speech?
FRITZSCHE: It is quite possible, but if you give me only 20 lines of that speech, I can only confirm that: At the time when I had seen the official German documents dealing with the atrocities committed against Germans in Poland I talked about that with great disgust on the radio, talked about what I saw in those documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?
GEN. RUDENKO: All right, Mr. President.
DR. THOMA: I ask you to grant leave for Defendant Rosenberg to be absent from the Court this afternoon because I have an important conference to hold with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.