DR. FRITZ: Dittmar writes that the possibility of retaining the critical

attitude in his radio commentary is due primarily to the silent approval

and the protection of Hans Fritzsche, the director of the political

radio. He believes that Fritzsche was a secret opponent of the regime

and that he was glad of the opportunity to have found a commentator who

discreetly expressed ideas which resembled his own and which insidiously

would tend to reduce confidence in the regime.

Following this quotation, there is another quotation from the affidavit

of Dr. Scharping, which I have already submitted as Document Number

Fritzsche-2. It is on Page 11 of this affidavit. I quote:

“The radio men and the journalists knew Fritzsche’s tolerance

quite well. It repeatedly happened that, for example, Fritzsche

at his conference had a copy of the _Völkischer Beobachter_ in

his hand and commented ironically on an anti-Jewish article. I

recall that once he expressed his criticism in about the

following words:

“‘A Berlin paper’—then he held up the _Völkischer Beobachter_

so that everyone could see it—‘has once more, in an editorial,

made more than two blunders. Perhaps the publisher may yet

succeed in hitting the right tune.’

“With such ironical remarks, Fritzsche always had the approval

of his listeners, but there was some danger for him, for

Goebbels daily read the records of these press conferences.”

Herr Fritzsche, following the statement of Lieutenant General Dittmar,

one question: Did you feel yourself to be an enemy of the system, or how

does General Dittmar come to this statement?

FRITZSCHE: I was not an enemy of the system. It would be ridiculous and

unworthy to try to assert that today. But I was definitely an opponent

of all misuse of the system. The obvious one which I noticed the most,

because it was in my field of work, was whitewashing of news during the

war. The aim of all my news policy was realism, and apparently that is

what General Dittmar means in the part of his statement which has been

read here.

I met General Dittmar in December 1942 or January 1943 at the moment

when the German 6th Army at Stalingrad was already surrounded, but when

this fact was still being kept secret from the German people. Together

with General Dittmar, in face of the prohibition, I publicly announced

the fact that the 6th Army was surrounded at Stalingrad. This caused a

great sensation at the time.

In the following months and years I always defended General Dittmar and

his realistic presentation of the military situation against all

attacks, especially against the attacks of the Party, but also against

the attacks of the Foreign Office, which repeatedly pointed out that

these sober presentations of Dittmar had a bad effect on Germany’s

allies.

In connection with this struggle for realistic news service, later—and

I ask permission to mention this briefly—I waged a desperate battle

against the irresponsible propaganda of miracle weapons. Only 1 year

after Dr. Goebbels had mentioned the future miracle weapons did I

mention a new type of weapon for the first time. Speer has mentioned SS

Standartenführer Berg, who is said to have carried on secret propaganda

for the miracle weapon in connection with the Propaganda Ministry. He

wrote an article in _Das Reich_ which attracted much attention, with the

sensational and very promising heading, “We, the Bearers of Secrets.” I

had to fight against things like that.

Another especially striking example was this: Another member of the SS,

Hernau, wrote, at the moment when the invasion had succeeded, an article

in which he presented the situation as if the evacuation of France had

been a very secret trick of the German Command, which offered the

possibility for a particularly strong counterblow. I prohibited this

article in my field, and I repeatedly had to oppose the irresponsible

rumors which were spread in secret about mysterious weapons. I did so

publicly, and I plainly stated my point of view on the radio against

this propaganda.

On the other hand I may point out that at every moment of the war my

superiors always made well-founded promises to me, first, of some

military offensive which was just being prepared; for instance, a thrust

from East Prussia toward the south, a thrust from Upper Silesia to the

Vistula, a thrust from Alsace toward the north, and so forth. Hand in

hand with these promises, which were thoroughly detailed, were the

political promises which were mentioned briefly yesterday, that is, the

descriptions given by Dr. Goebbels that foreign political negotiations

were in progress with the enemy on one or the other side.

DR. FRITZ: Another question: Who was in charge of press policy?

FRITZSCHE: Reich Press Chief Dr. Dietrich. He gave very specialized

instructions, mostly in a precise wording, the so-called “slogan of the

day of the Reich Press Chief.”

Generally he even gave the wording of the commentaries which were to be

added in the press conference.

For the most part, Dr. Dietrich was at the Führer’s headquarters and

received his instructions directly from Hitler. Dr. Dietrich’s

representatives were Sündermann and Lorenz. The second factor decisive

for German press policy was Reichsleiter Amann who was at the head of

the organization of publishers. The third factor was Dr. Goebbels as

Reich Propaganda Minister. Dietrich and Amann were nominally subordinate

to him; actually, both had the same authority as he had and I always had

to adjust differences or co-ordinate among these three authorities.

DR. FRITZ: Did you create the organization of the journalistic news

service?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, I did create this organization. In principle, it

originated with me. I may refer to my affidavit, 3469-PS, Point 17. I

was in charge of the journalistic news service from about 1934 to 1938.

I was proud of the fact that at the beginning of the war even the enemy

recognized the good functioning of this news machine. However, at that

time I was no longer the head of the so-called news service department.

As an expert I created this organization in peacetime without thinking

of the possibility of using it during war. The conclusion of the

Prosecution that I also determined the contents of the news service is

not correct.

DR. FRITZ: The Prosecution has said that the Propaganda Ministry was the

most fabulous lie factory of all times. What do you have to say about

this?

FRITZSCHE: First, for myself personally, I should like to make the

following quite clear. I state under oath: On really serious questions

of policy and the conduct of war I did not commit a single falsification

and did not consciously use a single lie.

How often I myself became the victim of a falsehood or a lie I cannot

say after the revelations of this Trial. The same is true, as far as I

know, of all my fellow workers, but I do not by any means want to deny

that I and my fellow workers selected news and quotations following a

certain tendency. It is the curse of propaganda during war that one

works only with black and white. Only a few great minds remain

independent. I believe that this painting in black and white is a luxury

which also cannot be afforded any longer.

As to the Propaganda Ministry itself, as such, I must say that I can

only judge of the one-twelfth, that is the one section of which I was in

charge at any time. But to my knowledge it is a mistake to believe that

in the Propaganda Ministry thousands of little lies were hatched out. In

details we worked quite cleanly and honestly, technically even

perfectly. If we had lied on a thousand small things, the enemy would

have been able to deal with us more easily than was the case. But

decisive for such a news machine is not the detail but the final

fundamental basis on which propaganda is built. Decisive is the belief

in the incorruptibility of the leaders of the state, on which every

journalist must rely and this basis is shaken by what has become known

today of mass murders, of senseless atrocities, and it is shaken by the

doubt in the honesty of Hitler’s protestations for peace, the factual

details of which I am not in a position to judge.

DR. FRITZ: In this Trial it has been pointed out that there are no

regulations in international law on the methods of propaganda in war and

peace.

FRITZSCHE: I know very well that international law places no

restrictions on propaganda, especially propaganda during war. I also

know very well that only in a very few individual treaties between

states are there regulations about the use of propaganda; for example in

the German-Polish treaty and in the German-Soviet Union treaty. But in

all my life as a journalist I have emphasized that the lack of

international regulations as to propaganda is no excuse for lies. I

always emphasized the moral responsibility of the journalist and

newsman. I did so long before the war in an international discussion

with Radio Luxembourg but it would lead too far afield to go into that

here.

If last May I did not seek death, one of the reasons for this was my

wish—I wanted to render an account of where, in that system, there were

the pure idealism and the heroic sacrifices of millions, and where there

were lies and the brutality which did not shrink from committing crimes.

DR. FRITZ: Please give us examples of cases wherein you felt you were

deceived.

FRITZSCHE: During this Trial the news was discussed which circulated at

the beginning of the Polish war about the attack on the Gleiwitz radio

station. At that time I firmly believed in the truth of the official

German news. I need say nothing about this case.

Then, in December of last year, here in the prison in Nuremberg, I

realized from a talk with Grand Admiral Raeder that it was actually a

German submarine which sank the _Athenia_. Up to that time I had firmly

believed in the truth of the official German report that there had been

no German submarine in the neighborhood. I have asked my lawyer to pick

out the most caustic statements I made in my radio speeches about the

_Athenia_ case and include them in my document book. They are utterances

which would really speak against me but which, on the other hand, show

that I worked not alone on the basis of the official German news, but

that I also collected the news which supported the official German

version; for example, the fact which was not at first made public and

therefore was suspicious, that the wreck of the _Athenia_, one day after

the catastrophe, was sunk by being shelled by British destroyers, which

is a matter of course in the interest of shipping but which at the time

seemed to me to be an occasion for suspicion. I also used American news

on the same subject. But the most impressive false news of which I was a

victim was given out in the last few days of the war. I must describe it

for the sake of clearing up matters.

In the days when Berlin was surrounded by the Russian Army the people of

Berlin were told that a relief army, the army of General Wenk, was

marching on Berlin; that there was no more fighting on the Western

Front. The news was given out that Ribbentrop had gone to the Western

Front and had concluded a treaty there, and handbills were printed in

Berlin which contained approximately this text: “Soldiers of the Wenk

army, we Berliners know that you are as far as Potsdam. Hurry, come

quickly, help us.” These handbills were printed at a time when the Wenk

army no longer existed and had already been captured. These handbills

were apparently dropped over Berlin inadvertently and were to give the

inhabitants of Berlin new courage. That happened in the days when

Hitler, according to Speer’s testimony, had already told his entourage

that there was no use trying to do anything for the rest of the German

people.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, the two radio speeches which the Defendant

Fritzsche has mentioned dealing with the Athenia case are in the

Document Number Fritzsche-1, which I submitted yesterday. I refer only

to the contents of these radio speeches.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Please give examples of untruths which you

knew and which you did not consider lies.

FRITZSCHE: One example is the so-called “V” drive. Colonel Britton, a

British colonel, proclaimed this “V” drive, this “Victory” drive on the

British radio. On the same evening I stood before a German microphone

and said, apparently harmlessly, “We will have a ‘V’ drive; the ‘V’

stands for ‘Victoria.’”

Then Colonel Britton said that I had stolen the “V” from him. I said

that was not the case, that I thought of it first.

DR. FRITZ: If you thought you were operating only with the truth, why

your sharp language, why the prohibition against listening on the radio

to foreign stations?

FRITZSCHE: I have already emphasized in my affidavit that in my opinion

the sharpness of my language was always less than that of my opponents.

The prohibition against listening to foreign radio stations was issued

decidedly against my will. This prohibition was only a hindrance for me

in my discussions with my foreign opponents in the various countries.

Due to this prohibition my enemy was, so to speak, half in shadow; I

could not speak to him officially, but, on the other hand, I knew that

many of my listeners had heard him.

May I mention here that I always advocated a mild judgment on the

violators of this prohibition against listening to foreign radio

stations. Legal authorities often consulted me as an expert. I may

emphasize that, particularly after Stalingrad, I established my own

listening service for the Russian radio in order to learn the names of

German soldiers captured at Stalingrad which were mentioned on the

Russian radio and report them to the relatives, because it seemed cruel

to me to deprive the relatives of such a source of information about the

fate of their people.

Moreover, there was only one alternative with regard to the prohibition

of listening to the radio. That was either to confiscate all radios and

stop the whole German radio system—the Party often demanded this—or

the prohibition against listening to foreign stations, which seemed to

me the lesser of the two evils.

Finally, we were in a war, and the enemy was not too particular in his

methods. I should like to give an example. That was the station Gustav

Siegfried 2, which at the beginning of its work gained listeners in

Germany with stories that I do not want to characterize more precisely

but which caused me to prohibit my own listening station from receiving

this broadcast.

DR. FRITZ: You have been charged with urging a policy of ruthless

exploitation of the occupied territories. Do you acknowledge such a

policy?

FRITZSCHE: No. The aim of all my propaganda work in Europe was, and had

to be, to win over the peoples of Europe to the German cause. Anything

else would have been illogical. All the radio broadcasts in all European

languages, which were made under my direction, had for years only one

aim: That was to win the voluntary co-operation, especially of the

occupied territories, for the fight of the Reich.

DR. FRITZ: Were you of the opinion that the German administration in the

occupied territories recruited voluntary co-operation?

FRITZSCHE: At the beginning, certainly, with one single exception. That

was Koch in the Ukraine. Otherwise, as far as I could see, all

administrations of occupied territories sought this collaboration more

or less skillfully. I saw the gigantic efforts which the Allies made to

interfere with this German collaboration policy, which was very

dangerous for them. I saw that in these efforts the Allies were at first

using their means of propaganda. This alone would not have worked. Then

I saw that they used other means in these efforts, that is, outrages and

sabotage. These latter efforts had great success. Outrages always called

for reprisals and reprisals always called forth new outrages.

I hope I will not be misunderstood, and this is not meant cynically, if

I say the following: I, as a propagandist, considered for example the

murder of Heydrich a minor success. The destruction of Lidice, carried

out by the Germans, however, was a tremendous success for the Allies. In

other words, I always was and had to be an opponent of reprisals of all

kinds.

DR. FRITZ: Did you know of the reprisals? How did you deal with them in

your propaganda?

FRITZSCHE: I learned of Lidice, which I just mentioned, only after

months, because at that time I was at the Eastern Front. I learned—and

this is significant—only of the destruction of the houses of Lidice and

the driving out of the inhabitants. I learned only here in the courtroom

of the killing of a part of the inhabitants. I learned that hostages

were taken, but not that they were killed. The killing of hostages was

made public only in the occupied territories. If shootings occurred

anywhere, I was told that they had been of persons condemned to death on

account of outrages or conspiracy.

The Night and Fog Decree was also unknown to me. On the other hand, I

frequently learned of fines which had been imposed on towns or

districts. In our propaganda, we always referred to the causes of such

reprisals.

DR. FRITZ: And how did you describe the work of the German

administrations in your propaganda?

FRITZSCHE: I always referred to the constructive work which, in spite of

all difficulties and all resistance, was being done in the various

occupied territories, especially and far ahead, the work for the

intensification of agriculture; then that to increase industrial

production. I had references made to the supplying of the occupied

territories with food, often, as I should like to emphasize, from scant

German stocks. I had reports made of the creation of schools, and I

received at times very impressive reports and had them worked on, for

example, on the supplying of cities such as Paris, in spite of sabotage

by the enemy against railroad lines or other supply channels. I had such

reports collected in permanent files and had speeches and whole series

of speeches made on them. There were many such reports. I must emphasize

that, as far as I know, in not a single German-occupied territory was

there an infant mortality of 80 percent, and in none were there fields

lying fallow, and it is simply not true, as the Prosecution said here

once, although in a moment of excitement, that Germany and the Germans

were well fed and happy during the war while the occupied territories

starved. That is not true.

DR. FRITZ: What did you know about bad conditions in the occupied

territories?

FRITZSCHE: Above all, the failure to call on the population for their

own administration and the lack of decisive political concessions to the

countries which administered themselves. Immediately after the French

campaign, I had repeatedly demanded the establishment of a Magna Charta

for Europe, laying down the basic rights of the European peoples. I

prepared many memoranda on this subject which were accepted by Dr.

Goebbels and taken to Hitler; and when in the autumn of 1942 I decided

to return to the Propaganda Ministry, one of the promises which Dr.

Goebbels gave me was that now finally that Magna Charta for Europe would

be proclaimed.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, on this occasion I should like to quote a

passage from the Scharping affidavit, Document Number Fritzsche-2, Page

13 of the affidavit:

“After the occupation of various European countries, Fritzsche

issued directives for news releases to the effect that the

peoples of Europe were to form a league of states on the basis

of equality with Germany. He told me to work out a series of

speeches to this effect in which this point of view was to play

the decisive role and which at the same time should give the

authorities hints for a healthy reconstruction in the occupied

territories.”

[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you know what has been said here by

the Prosecution about the activity of the Police in the occupied

territories?

FRITZSCHE: No.

DR. FRITZ: At this point I should like to interpolate a question: I have

already asked the witness Paulus about your conduct after you learned of

the Commissar Order. How about that?

FRITZSCHE: I learned of the order to shoot captured Soviet commissars at

the beginning of May 1942 when I came to the 6th Army. I immediately

opposed it. Whether it was carried out or not, I do not know. Field

Marshal Paulus, no doubt, is correct when he said that he had already

prevented in his army the execution of this order. At any rate, I made

it my business to have the order as such rescinded, and I achieved this.

The 6th Army, at my advice, gave certain information to the High Command

of the Wehrmacht or to the Armed Forces Operations Staff. I am

convinced, moreover, that many army leaders acted in the same way as the

leader of the 6th Army and simply did not carry out the order. At any

rate, it was expressly rescinded afterward.

DR. FRITZ: The Prosecution quotes two paragraphs from your radio speech

of 5 July 1941.

Mr. President, that is in the English record of Captain Sprecher, Pages

32 and 33.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The Prosecution concludes from this

presentation that you had agitated for ruthless measures against the

population of the Soviet Union. You are said to have vilified the people

of the Soviet Union.

THE PRESIDENT: We cannot find it here. What is the PS number?

DR. FRITZ: It is in the transcript, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: We have not got the transcript here. We have the document

book. The document book does not contain 32 and 33 pages. It contains

only 32 or 31 and a little bit...

DR. FRITZ: I can give the document number which is 3064-PS, Exhibit

USA-723 and...

THE PRESIDENT: It is Page 14 in our book. Well, did you say 5 July?

DR. FRITZ: 5 July 1941.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have got the 7th and 10th of July but not the

5th. What page in the shorthand notes was it? You know it?

DR. FRITZ: On Page 32, Page 33 in the English transcript. I have the

English transcript here.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better read it then.

DR. FRITZ: This quotation from Captain Sprecher’s speech for the

Prosecution reads:

“Letters from the front, film reporters, propaganda companies

attached to the German Army wherever it advanced, P. K.

reporters, and soldiers on leave confirm: In this battle in the

East it is not one ideology fighting against another, not one

political system against another, but culture, civilization, and

human dignity have revolted against devilish principles of an

underworld.”

FRITZSCHE: I should like to state the following: With this statement I

was neither calling for ruthless measures against the population of the

Soviet Union, nor did I want to vilify the people of the Soviet Union. I

refer to the full text of the speech of 5 July. I do not wish to read

this speech, but I should like permission to sum it up briefly.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in my Document Book 1—I do not know whether

the Tribunal already has it—I have all the radio speeches...

THE PRESIDENT: No, we haven’t got it.

DR. FRITZ: I have all these radio speeches of the Defendant Fritzsche

from which the Prosecution quoted passages against him in my document

book in their full text.

THE PRESIDENT: It has just been handed up to me. What page is it?

DR. FRITZ: Pages 8 to 13, the radio speech of 5 July 1941.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Will you continue?

FRITZSCHE: I ask for permission to sum up the contents very briefly.

I spoke of the reports which the German public received about what

German soldiers had seen in their advance in the Soviet Union,

especially in connection with prisoners in the prisons in various

cities. I did not describe these things once more; I only recalled them

from the reports which had been given out at the time. From them I drew

the conclusion that now one saw how necessary the fight was against a

system under which such atrocities were possible. For the peoples of the

Soviet Union I expressly used words of compassion and sympathy.

DR. FRITZ: In the same connection, and with the same tendency, the

Prosecution then quotes a sentence from a paragraph of your radio speech

of 10 July 1941.

Mr. President, that is in Document Book 1—the speech of 10 July

1941—also in its full text, on Pages 14 to 19.

[_Turning to the defendant._] What do you have to say to this charge?

FRITZSCHE: What I just said becomes even clearer in this quotation, and

in this whole speech. I referred once more to the reports just

mentioned. I also referred to the descriptions coming from foreign

correspondents. I then quite frankly reported Moscow’s attitude toward

these events and I said, quite honestly, “Radio Moscow says that these

atrocities are facts, but it maintains that these atrocities were not

committed by Russians but by Germans.”

In view of this attitude of Moscow, I, so to speak, took the public into

my confidence. I called upon millions of German soldiers as witnesses; I

called upon their mothers and fathers and wives as witnesses. I formally

called as witnesses the inhabitants of the occupied territories in which

Germans were in power at the time, and in which, as I said, they were

subordinated only to the moral laws in their own breasts. Then I drew

the conclusion: These German soldiers cannot have committed the

atrocities which were described by Berlin and Moscow in the same way.

The Prosecution asserted that this attempt to ascribe German atrocities

to the Russians was ridiculous. I do not consider it ridiculous; I

consider it tragic. It shows clearly, as I understand it, the absolute

cleanliness and honesty of the whole German conduct of the war. I still

believe today that murder and violence and Sonderkommandos only clung

like a foreign body, like a boil, to the morally sound body of the

German people and their Armed Forces.

DR. FRITZ: Finally, the Prosecution quotes a passage from your speech of

9 October 1941, another quotation from which was brought out elsewhere.

Mr. President, this is in the Fritzsche Document Book Number 1; the

speech in its full text is on Pages 20 to 25. The quotations of the

Prosecution are summed up in a document in the Fritzsche document book

of the Prosecution. I think the Tribunal can easily compare it.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The Prosecution concludes from this

quotation that you had approved of the policy of the Nazi conspirators

in their ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories. What have

you to say to that?

FRITZSCHE: There is no question of ruthlessness either in the quotation

given by the Prosecution or in the rest of the text of the speech of 9

October 1941. I refer to my affidavit 3469-PS, Paragraph 39, a paragraph

which the Prosecution very fairly quoted in this connection.

In addition, may I once more sum up, very briefly, the sense of this

speech.

That was the time when German soldiers were stationed from the Black Sea

to the Bay of Biscay. I spoke of the possibility of exploiting the

resources of this enormous territory. I said, “The possibilities of this

continent are so considerable that they can cover any need for war and

for peace.” I said, in this connection, that a starving-out by blockade,

such as was attempted in 1914-18, was now out of the question. I spoke

of the possibilities of the organization of Europe which could begin in

the midst of the war...

DR. FRITZ: In the midst of war?

FRITZSCHE: ...in the midst of war, and I meant the organization of

European nations with equal rights. It is beyond all doubt that at that

time I was not thinking of ruthless exploitation of the occupied

territories, but only of winning them over politically and economically

after the storms of war had blown by.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I now come to another subject, so perhaps this

would be a good time to break off.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. THOMA: I have a request, Mr. President. I would like to have my

client excused for the rest of the day because I want to talk to him.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.

[_A recess was taken._]

DR. FRITZ: What did you know about the removal of Jews from occupied

countries?

FRITZSCHE: I did not know anything of their removal, but I heard that

certain individuals were being arrested, Jews and non-Jews.

DR. FRITZ: What did you know about the topic, which we discussed here,

of slave labor?

FRITZSCHE: I knew that millions of foreign workers were working in the

Reich. I did not consider them slaves, for I saw them daily walking

about free on the streets of all the cities.

DR. FRITZ: What did you know about their treatment, about their living

conditions, and their wages?

FRITZSCHE: Reports about these things were sent to me or to my

co-workers from the office of Sauckel and the German Labor Front. From

these reports, among other things, I remember the fact that the foreign

workers were given the same treatment as the German workers in every

respect. I further recall having heard that the initial inferior

treatment accorded to Eastern Workers had been done away with. I

received many reports from listeners complaining about the fact that

foreign workers were allegedly in better position than German workers;

and in this connection, I remember a reference to the fact that the

foreign workers were permitted to send home money in the form of foreign

exchange.

I also talked with foreign workers many times. I did not hear any

special complaints. On the other hand, in the Propaganda Ministry,

through official channels, I heard a great deal about the care given to

foreign workers even along cultural lines. Frequently I was approached

by Sauckel or the German Labor Front—I do not remember which it

was—with the request to have radio broadcasts sent to one or another

group of foreign workers. I was approached also with the request for

turning over receiving sets to camps of foreign workers, _et cetera_.

DR. FRITZ: Did you know that most of them did not come to Germany

voluntarily?

FRITZSCHE: That was exactly what I did not know. Here in this proceeding

it was mentioned that Sauckel in one meeting or another made a statement

about the fact that only a small percentage had come voluntarily. That

was unknown to me.

I did hear the following complaints: First of all, that extravagant

promises were made at the time of recruitment of the foreign workers,

which could not be kept afterward. In the interest of my propaganda I

had objections raised against that through the propaganda department of

my Ministry when I heard about it. Then, I remember having heard

complaints from Poland dealing with the fact that employers were

“pirating” Polish workers from one another.

DR. FRITZ: Sauckel testified that in this connection he co-operated with

the Propaganda Ministry and that he had many discussions with the

Propaganda Ministry. Did you participate in such discussions?

FRITZSCHE: No, I did not participate in these conferences. I thought

that I met Sauckel here for the first time. He reminded me of our

meeting in the spring of 1945 at the home of Dr. Goebbels when some

evening gathering took place.

DR. FRITZ: Did you have anything to do with the propaganda used in the

recruitment of foreign workers in occupied countries?

FRITZSCHE: No.

DR. FRITZ: What did you have to do with the propaganda which was

disseminated in the occupied countries?

FRITZSCHE: This propaganda, as it applied to occupied countries, was not

subordinate to me, not even in the branches of the press or radio. This

propaganda was under the direction and supervision of the local Reich

commissioner, military commander, or governor. However, I did exert

influence on this propaganda in the occupied countries on two, three, or

four occasions when this propaganda in the occupied countries was

contrary to the directives which applied to the Reich. I usually

gathered this from the echo abroad. I remember one special case which

received general attention. A certain man by the name of Friedrich

attacked the Pope over the German radio in Paris. I had this man

Friedrich replaced. That was the extent of my influence.

Dr. Goebbels, however, exerted much more influence on the propaganda in

the occupied countries, especially through his foreign section or his

Foreign Press Department or through his liaison officer to the OKW.

DR. FRITZ: Did you not make any radio broadcasts in the occupied

countries?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, broadcasts of two types. An example of the first type is

as follows: At the time of the occupation, Radio Paris was under German

influence. Despite that, I retained the old German broadcast in the

French language via Radio Stuttgart. I wanted to have it understood

quite specifically that the occupation was an abnormal and a temporary

situation, and anything that was taking place during the period of

occupation did not have anything to do with that part of, let us say,

German-French conversations, which was being carried on by the two

mother countries.

The second example is as follows: It concerns German broadcasts in the

Spanish and Portuguese languages. I had them transmitted through three

stations in southern France, for it was easier to receive these

transmissions in the Pyrenees peninsula. The basis for my work in this

connection was a contract which we had with these stations and the

payment of regular charges. Negotiations for this contract were carried

out through the Foreign Office.

DR. FRITZ: I shall now turn to a different topic. You are accused of

making anti-Semitic statements. Were you anti-Semitic, and in what way

did you participate in anti-Semitic propaganda?

FRITZSCHE: I was not anti-Semitic in the idea of a noisy anti-Semitism.

The Prosecution has asserted that all defendants—that is, including

myself—had shouted, “Germany awake and Judaism shall die.” I will state

under oath that I never raised this cry or one similar. I was not

anti-Semitic in the sense of either the radical theories or methods

beginning with Theodor Fritsch to Julius Streicher.

The Prosecution has stated that even the Defendant Streicher, the main

anti-Jewish agitator of all times, could hardly have excelled Fritzsche

when it came to libels against the Jews. I protest against this

statement. I do not believe that I deserve any such accusation. Never

did I give out any propaganda dealing with ritual murders, cabala, and

the so-called secrets of the Elders of Zion. At all times of my life I

considered them machinations of a rather primitive agitation. For

humanitarian reasons, I regret that I have to make a further statement,

but I cannot refrain from making this statement in the interests of

truth.

My co-workers and I, in the press and on the radio, without exception I

would say, rejected _Der Stürmer_ radically. I personally, during a

period of 13 years of regular newspaper comments, never quoted this

paper. _Der Stürmer_ was not quoted in the German press either. The

editors did not belong to the journalists’ union and the publisher did

not belong to the publishers’ organization during my term of office. How

things were later on, I do not know.

As I have already stated in my affidavit, I tried twice to ban _Der

Stürmer_. However, I did not succeed. Then it was proposed that I censor

_Der Stürmer_. However, I declined the offer. I wanted to prohibit the

publishing of _Der Stürmer_, not just because the mere verbatim

reproduction of a page of the newspaper _Der Stürmer_ was the most

effective anti-German propaganda which ever existed, but I wanted to ban

_Der Stürmer_ simply for reasons of good taste. I wanted to prohibit it

as a source of radicalism against which I fought wherever I met it.

The great secret for the sudden increase in the circulation of _Der

Stürmer_ after 1933 to half a million, already referred to in this

Court, lay in the same cause as the secret of the sudden increase of

such organizations as the SA.

The Party in 1933 had blocked the influx of new members, and a great

many people tried to get in somehow, if not directly with the Party,

then with some organization connected with the Party, such as, perhaps,

the SA. Or they tried to show sympathy with National Socialist ideas by

subscribing to _Der Stürmer_ and displaying it. Therefore, in that

sense, I was not anti-Semitic.

But I was anti-Semitic in this sense: I wanted a restriction of the

predominant influence of Jewry in German politics, economy, and culture,

such as was manifested after the first World War. I wanted a restriction

based on the ratio of Jews to Germans. I proclaimed publicly this view

of mine on occasions, but I did not exploit these views in extensive

systematic propaganda.

Those anti-Semitic statements with which I am charged by the Prosecution

have a different connection. The facts are as follows: After the

outbreak of the war I referred frequently to the fact that Jewish

emigrants immediately after 1933, were the first ones to emphasize that

a war against the National Socialist German State was necessary; for

instance, Emil Ludwig or George Bernhard or the _Pariser Tageblatt_. As

far as I recall, this was the only connection in which I made

anti-Semitic statements of any kind. I cannot say this without asking to

be permitted to emphasize one more point. Only in these proceedings here

did I learn that in the autumn of 1939 there was more at stake than just

one city and a road through the Corridor; that in truth and in fact, a

new partition of Poland had already been prepared at least, and only

here in these proceedings did I learn that Hitler had confirmed in a

dreadful manner the warnings of the Jews against him by an order to

murder them. If I had known both of these things at that time, then I

would have pictured the role of Jewish propaganda before the outbreak of

the war quite differently.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to

the document which has already been submitted, Document Number

Fritzsche-2, the affidavit by Dr. Scharping, with reference to Pages 9

to 11. This document is found in my Document Book Number 2; however, I

do not know whether this document book has been submitted to the High

Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it has.

DR. FRITZ: Pages 9 to 11. I refer to the contents of this document.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The Prosecution has quoted a passage from

the book by Müller, dealing with the Propaganda Ministry. According to

this, among other things, it was the task of this Ministry to enlighten

the population about the Jewish question. According to the picture drawn

by the Prosecution, matters stood as though you were the one charged

with the task of this enlightenment; is that correct?

FRITZSCHE: No. The “Jewry” department was a branch of the propaganda

department which carried on this so-called active propaganda in

opposition to the specialized or administrative departments. I never

directed this department of propaganda.

DR. FRITZ: I should like to interpolate a question. The Defendant

Streicher, on 29 April, stated that the Propaganda Ministry published a

_National Socialist Correspondence_ which was sent to _Der Stürmer_ as

well and which contained in each issue several anti-Semitic articles. Is

that true?

FRITZSCHE: No. The _National Socialist Correspondence_ was not published

by the Propaganda Ministry, but by the Reichspressestelle (Reich Press

Office) of the NSDAP; however, I did not have the impression that the

particular policy followed by _Der Stürmer_ took its character from

these articles. On the other hand, _Der Stürmer_ may have published one

or the other article which was given out by the NSK.

DR. FRITZ: The Prosecution quoted a passage from a speech which you made

over the radio on 18 December 1941. This speech will be found in full in

my Document Book Number 1, Pages 26 to 32. In this instance, you said

that the fate of Jewry in Europe had been rather unpleasant and that

this fate in all probability would stretch over to the New World as

well. The Prosecution holds the view that this was a proclamation of

further actions in the persecution of Jews. What can you tell us about

this?

FRITZSCHE: In this quotation, I discussed the unpleasant fate of Jewry

in Europe. According to the things that we know today, this must appear

as though I meant the murder of the Jews. But in this connection, I

should like to state that at that time I did not know about these

murders; therefore I could not have meant it. I did not even mean the

evacuation of Jews, for even this was not carried out in Berlin at least

until a year or two later.

What I meant was simply the elimination of Jews from politics and

economic life. The expression “unpleasant” hints at this; otherwise the

inoffensiveness of this term could not be explained. And now to the

question of why I spoke about the Jews in America in this connection.

The sentence quoted by the Prosecution is inextricably connected with a

communication preceding it, stating that a Jewish National Council had

submitted to President Roosevelt their wish to enter the war. Not even

this association of ideas, which is perhaps understandable now, was used

by me without good reason. The largest part of the speech in question,

perhaps nine-tenths of it, in fact, deals with the investigation

commission set up in the United States to investigate the causes of

Pearl Harbor.

THE PRESIDENT: There are a lot of pages in this.

DR. FRITZ: The Document Book Number 1, Mr. President, Pages 26 to 32.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes; I wanted to know whether first of all we are on Page

31.

DR. FRITZ: He is referring in his statements which he is making now to

the entire contents of the speech, Mr. President. The Prosecution had

quoted only the very last paragraph of this speech.

[_Turning to the defendant.]_ Please continue.

FRITZSCHE: In this polemic address I not only suggested investigating

whether the guards of the U. S. Navy had been careless but I also

advised checking into American politics, as to whether someone might not

have been interested in the outbreak of the war. In this connection, I

recalled that an investigating committee of the American Senate, 20

years after the first World War, had investigated the causes for entry

of the United States in the war in 1917. I said verbatim, “This Senate

committee proved that Wilson, when entering the war, knew that he was

the victim of a few warmongers.” I deplored...

THE PRESIDENT: The investigation committee of the Americans about the

entry into the last war? Isn’t he going rather far back?

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I believe that the defendant can stop at this

point. He only wanted to show that the quotation of the last paragraph

cited by the Prosecution in order to incriminate him was, torn from its

contents. That is the fact he wanted to show, Mr. President.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The second quotation used by the

Prosecution is an excerpt from your radio speech of 18 March 1941. The

Prosecution was of the opinion that this was also an incitement for the

persecution of Jews, and they said, further, that it was proof of your

propaganda with the term “master race.”

Mr. President, this speech of 18 March 1941 may be found in my Document

Book Number 1, Pages 2 to 7.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The Prosecution quoted only one paragraph

from this speech. What can you tell us in this connection?

FRITZSCHE: I do not wish to read this quotation. I rather ask that you

read it carefully yourself, and after you have read it you will see that

I completely agreed with Mr. Roosevelt when he said that there was no

master race. I endorsed the correctness of this sentence not only as it

applied to the German people, but to Jewry as well. The Prosecution

concluded from this sentence that it was a justification for acts

committed in Jewish persecutions in the past and that it was a

foreboding of more persecutions to come. I do not understand this

conclusion; it has no basis whatsoever.

THE PRESIDENT: In our copy there is no date at the top of Page 2 of your

Volume I—yes, I see it is in the index. Which page of it is the passage

that the Prosecution quotes?

DR. FRITZ: On Page 5 under Point 5, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.

DR. FRITZ: It begins with the words, “But the crown...” and so forth.

That is the quotation used by the Prosecution.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The third quotation used by the

Prosecution is a passage from the speech which you made on 9 October

1941.

Mr. President, the whole speech is to be found in Document Book Number

1, Pages 20 to 25.

[_Turning to the defendant._] The Prosecution quoted only one paragraph

from this speech as well.

In this paragraph, you, Herr Fritzsche, are speaking about a new wave of

international Jewish-democratic-bolshevistic agitation. What can you

tell us about this?

FRITZSCHE: I have very little to say in this connection. This speech was

made in those days of the autumn of 1941 when the Reich Press Chief had

announced that German victory in the East had been decisive. I had

warned the entire German press about taking this slogan without

reservations. I did not believe in this decision which supposedly had

already taken place. I suggested to all German newspapers that they

speak about a prolonged duration of the war. In this speech of mine I

wanted to weaken the impression of the official victory bulletin.

Therefore, in this speech, and perhaps for the first time in Germany, I

mentioned those three factors which, in fact, later on determined the

war in the East against Germany: First of all, the partisans; secondly,

the international help in the way of arms and munitions; and thirdly,

propaganda. This last part alone was quoted by the Prosecution. As I

have already said, this last part is quite in accord with the knowledge

and opinion I held at that time.

DR. FRITZ: The next quotation used by the Prosecution is an extract from

a speech which you made on 8 January 1944.

The complete speech, Mr. President, may be found in my Document Book

Number 1. It is speech Number 7, to be found on Pages 40 to 45.

[_Turning to the defendant._] In this speech you are stating that it was

not a new form of government or a new form of socialism which had

brought about the war, but rather the agitation of Jews and plutocrats

was responsible for this. How did you come to make that statement?

FRITZSCHE: To justify it, I should like to refer here, too, to

everything that I have already said, and beyond that, I should like to

emphasize that this rather heated accusation was not made by me just out

of the blue or just because I wanted to agitate. This is proven by the

context.

If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to state briefly the

connection in this case. The topic of this speech was the differences of

opinion which existed at that time between the Polish Exile Government

in Moscow—rather, in London—and the Soviet Government in Moscow. There

was a matter of territorial demands which they disagreed on, and on this

occasion I quoted the London _Times_ word for word. The London _Times_

said that “the relinquishing of Polish regions, as demanded by Russia,

was only a small and modest price for the absolute and reliable

guarantee to Poland of help through the Soviet Union.” This statement

made by the London Times I used as a matter of course in a polemic

statement in which I said, “Well, if the _Times_ had written in such a

strain in August of 1939, that it was only about a city or a road, then

surely there would not have been any war,” and so forth.

On this occasion I should like to state that all of these quotations,

almost without exception, show only the combination of the concept Jew,

Plutocrat, Bolshevik. The question of race was not the primary one, but

the thing that was primary was the ideological struggle as it seemed, to

my mind, to be taking place.

DR. FRITZ: The next quotations used by the Prosecution are some excerpts

from your speech of 13 January 1945.

Mr. President, this is speech Number 8, contained in full in Document

Book Number 1, to be found on Pages 46 to 51. The Prosecution in this

case is quoting only two paragraphs, one on Page 50 of my document book,

Paragraph 2.

[_Turning to the defendant._] In these passages you mention Jewish

influence on British policies. How could you make those statements? What

were your reasons?

FRITZSCHE: The Prosecution assumes from this quotation that it was the

introduction to further persecution of the Jews and to their complete

extermination. This conclusion, however, is justified neither in the

words nor in the sense nor when seen in the light of the context...

I shall forego giving you in this case a picture of the connections, not

even in a brief summary. It can be gathered when you read the speech in

question.

However, I cannot see where an appeal for the extermination of the Jews

is to be found.

DR. FRITZ: Forming a part of the general crimes against humanity you are

accused of incitive libel against the Jews, the logical result of which

is said to have been further persecutions.

Therefore, I want to ask you about the murder of Jews. Did you know of

Hitler’s decree, as testified by the witness Hoess, a decree according

to which the Jews were to be murdered?

FRITZSCHE: I should like to state under my oath that I did not know of

this order by Hitler. If I had known it, I would not have served that

person who had given this order for another hour. I should like to state

further that evidently this decree, as well as this entire action, was

concealed with specific care from me and my co-workers, because once I

almost discovered its existence.

DR. FRITZ: Did you receive at any time an indication about the killing

of a large number of innocent people?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. In February or March 1942 I received a letter from a

medium-ranking SS leader of the Ukraine. I do not recall this man’s

name. The contents of the letter were to the effect that the author was

the commander of an SS unit, that he had received an order to kill the

Jews and the Ukrainian intelligentsia of his area. Upon receipt of this

order, he had suffered a nervous breakdown and he was now in a hospital.

It seemed to him that a complaint along official channels was quite

impossible for him. He said he did not know me but had confidence in me;

perhaps I could help in some way. He asked me not to mention his name as

he was bound to silence at the cost of his life.

Without much hesitation and immediately upon receipt of this letter I

called Heydrich, the Obergruppenführer, then leader of the RSHA or the

Gestapo. I hardly knew him personally, but he declared himself quite

willing to receive me immediately. I visited him and asked him

pointblank, “Is your SS there for the purpose of committing mass

murders?”

Heydrich was quite indignant at this question, and said that larger or

smaller SS units had been assigned by him for police purposes to various

ministers, Reich commissioners, and so forth. These special details of

SS men had been misused on various occasions, and he thought this might

apply to the unit which had been placed at the disposal of Gauleiter

Koch. He told me that he would have an investigation started

immediately.

Next noon he called me, from headquarters as he said, and let me know

that this action had actually been attempted on the order of Koch. Koch,

for his part, had referred to the Führer. The Führer, however, had not

answered as yet. Heydrich said I would receive further details.

Two days later Heydrich asked me to come and visit him and said Hitler

had expressly declared that he had not given this order; Koch now said

that there was a misunderstanding. I was further told that an

investigation of Koch had been started. At any rate, Heydrich promised

me that this action would not be carried through. I remember

particularly well one sentence which was used in this discussion, words

used by Heydrich: “Believe me, Herr Fritzsche, anyone who has the

reputation of being cruel does not have to be cruel; he can act

humanely.”

Shortly thereafter, I was made a soldier and asked to be sent to the 6th

Army and was sent to the Ukraine.

DR. FRITZ: Did you...

THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I did not understand that last sentence.

Heydrich said, “Believe me, Herr Fritzsche...” and then...

FRITZSCHE: May I repeat: “...anyone who has the reputation of being

cruel does not have to be cruel; he can act humanely.”

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but then you went on about going to the 6th Army?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, shortly thereafter I became a soldier...

DR. FRITZ: He added, Mr. President, that shortly after this meeting with

Heydrich, he himself, that is the Defendant Fritzsche, became a soldier

and he specifically asked to be detailed to the 6th Army which at that

time was stationed in the Ukraine.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of this incident?

FRITZSCHE: February-March 1942.

DR. FRITZ: When you were a soldier in the Ukraine, did you try to check

the statements of Heydrich as to their correctness?

FRITZSCHE: I had no official authority to do this, but as an old

journalist I made investigations on my own, of course.

First of all, I investigated in Kiev, with the local German radio

station. The answer was: Yes, several shootings actually did take place,

specifically after the blowing up of certain blocks of houses in Kiev,

on which occasion many German soldiers lost their lives. However, they

were shootings according to sentences imposed by courts-martial.

Then, for 3 days I traveled in all directions between Kiev and Poltava.

Mostly I traveled alone. I found the population in utmost peace; there

were no signs of terror whatsoever, and by the way, I was received very

well myself.

At Poltava I checked with officers and soldiers. On these occasions as

well, I was told, “Yes, there were some court-martial sentences. The

reason for these sentences was sabotage.”

Then, in Kharkov itself, I visited the SS command stationed there, and I

spoke with the Sturmführer Rexlach. He denied any shooting actions. He

showed me the prison and there were perhaps 50 inmates, no more. I asked

him about camps and he stated that there were none.

Then I visited a Ukrainian family; I questioned a German agricultural

leader at Bielgorod, and I met with the same result in every case: no

shooting actions took place.

I certainly assumed from that that it had been an attempted individual

action which had not been carried through.

DR. FRITZ: Before this letter which the SS leader had sent you, did you

not already have suspicions, perhaps from Allied radio broadcasts to

which you had access?

FRITZSCHE: These radio broadcasts were accessible to me. I had reports

on atrocities specially gathered at that time and selected from the

great number of enemy broadcasts which we received every day, and then I

had these reports investigated and checked.

DR. FRITZ: And who concerned himself with this checking?

FRITZSCHE: The competent specialist, Oberregierungsrat Körber, in charge

of the Schnelldienst office of the Press Department, or one of his

co-workers, or I myself.

DR. FRITZ: Where was this checked?

FRITZSCHE: We inquired of the RSHA, for in most of these reports of

atrocities the SS or Gestapo were mentioned as the ones who had

perpetrated the murders.

DR. FRITZ: At which of the many branches of this office did you inquire?

FRITZSCHE: We inquired at the various competent offices, and I do not

doubt that we inquired of Eichmann, who has been mentioned in these

proceedings here. Apart from that, we inquired of Sturmbannführer

Spengler or his deputy Von Kielpinsky, both of them members of that

office which, at that time or later, was taken over by Ohlendorf who has

also appeared here as a witness. Frequently we inquired of the branch

offices of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, the so-called state police

control offices as well, especially if there were reports from a special

area.

DR. FRITZ: What were the answers you received?

FRITZSCHE: We always received the answer that the report in question was

either completely wrong and was an invention, or that the report had

this or that legal basis.

Frequently figures and details were reported which in effect were quite

disarming.

DR. FRITZ: Are there any records of this?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. The more important questions and answers were noted and

were even reproduced and sent to the various offices within and outside

the Propaganda Ministry. All the material was collected in the archives

called “Schnelldienst,” for which I applied here and which was granted

to me but not found.

DR. FRITZ: And you just believed these answers?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, I did believe them, for after all this was information

which was given to me by official sources and furthermore I had

experienced on numerous occasions that the authenticity of such reports

from these sources had been proved very drastically.

DR. FRITZ: What do you mean by that?

FRITZSCHE: Perhaps I might give you an example. The first propaganda

action of the war was the report given out by Warsaw about the

destruction of the picture of the “Black Madonna” of Czestochowa. This

report was transmitted around the world. We took German and foreign

journalists to Czestochowa, who could assure themselves that this report

was not true.

But I must be quite honest here and say that I really wanted to cite

another example in reply to this question put by my counsel, another

report which really had its surprising after-effects for me in this

courtroom some 2 or 3 days ago. The British newspaper _News Chronicle_,

on 24 September 1939, printed the report that the German...

THE PRESIDENT: What is the evidential value of the _News Chronicle_ in

1939?

DR. FRITZ: The defendant wants to prove to the High Tribunal that he

found that many reports from abroad, dealing with German atrocities,

actually were false, so that...

THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do not need details about that. No doubt there

were frequent reports which were not accurate. We do not want you to go

into details.

FRITZSCHE: I wanted to prove with just one news item how at that time

something which the world believed could be denied and then, in the

shadow of this denial, quite unnoticed by the German public, something

did take place, such as a larger wave of arrests or a similar matter.

THE PRESIDENT: He can state the facts, but he need not go into detail

about a particular issue of the newspaper.

DR. FRITZ: Was it only once, Herr Fritzsche, that you learned of the

falsehood of such foreign broadcasts?

FRITZSCHE: No, that took place quite frequently.

DR. FRITZ: Please be very brief, Herr Fritzsche.

FRITZSCHE: One of my co-workers gathered the necessary material for an

article entitled, “In 8 Weeks of War 107 Lies.” I should like to say

only one thing about this. The compilation of such false reports given

out by our enemy gave me a sense of moral superiority over that type of

reporting, and this feeling was the basis of my later work, which could

not be explained without this feeling.

DR. FRITZ: Did it not strike you that such false reports occurred only

in the beginning of the war?

FRITZSCHE: No, that thought never occurred to me. The reports were so

numerous in the beginning and I could also notice them in later years.

Some affected me personally.

DR. FRITZ: How far did they affect you personally? Can you sketch it in

a few brief words?

FRITZSCHE: Just one of many statements: An enemy front propaganda

bulletin accused me of the fact that 600,000 Swedish kroner...

THE PRESIDENT: What is he going to now? What is the purpose of this?

DR. FRITZ: He wants to give an example of how a false statement applied

to him personally. He wanted to state that briefly.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said already, there were, no doubt, erroneous

statements made in the foreign press and every press. We cannot

investigate those sorts of matters.

DR. FRITZ: Then I shall pass on to another question.

[_Turning to the defendant._] Did you not, as an experienced journalist

in the news service, have the feeling that where there is smoke there is

fire? Did you not believe that at least something must be true of the

enemy reports about murders and so forth in the areas under German

domination?

FRITZSCHE: Precisely because I was a professional newsman I did not have

this feeling. Again and again I thought—and I repeatedly reminded the

public—of one erroneous bit of reporting of the first World War. I beg

the Tribunal to grant me permission to mention it quite briefly because

it is also a part of the fundamentals of the propaganda which I carried

on.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I have already pointed out that we assume that there

are a variety of errors. We do not want to go into detail.

DR. FRITZ: Then I shall turn to another question.

[_Turning to the defendant._] But surely you knew that the Jews had been

evacuated from the Reich; you must have noticed that they disappeared

from the streets?

FRITZSCHE: Yes, I did notice that even though this occurred very

gradually. Beyond that I heard Dr. Goebbels say on the occasion of a

ministerial conference that as Gauleiter in Berlin he had demanded the

evacuation of Jews.

DR. FRITZ: Where were these Jews taken in your opinion and what were you

told about these things?

FRITZSCHE: Dr. Goebbels told me that they were taken to reservations in

Poland. The suspicion that they were taken to concentration camps, or

that they were even being murdered, never arose.

DR. FRITZ: Did you inquire about these reservations into which the Jews

were allegedly being taken?

FRITZSCHE: Of course I did that. For instance, I learned of various

things from a former co-worker of mine who had been transferred into the

administration of the Government General and who had an administrative

position in the region Biala-Podlaska. He said that the area under his

control had become a Jewish area, and he repeatedly pictured the arrival

and the housing of these transportees. He also mentioned the

difficulties and the employment of Jews as workers or on plantations.

His entire description bore witness to his humane point of view. He told

me that under him the Jews fared better than they had in the Reich.

DR. FRITZ: What was the name of this man?

FRITZSCHE: Oberregierungsrat Hubert Kühl.

DR. FRITZ: Did you hear unfavorable reports about these deported Jews?

FRITZSCHE: Yes. Sturmbannführer Radke of the staff of the Reichsführer

SS reported, perhaps in the winter of 1942, that the mortality rate of

the Jews in the eastern ghettos was abnormally high due to the

changeover from mental work to manual labor. He mentioned there were

even some isolated cases of typhus.

Apart from that, Dr. Tauber, who was head of the section dealing with

Jewish questions in the propaganda department, told me in 1941, if I

remember correctly, that there had been pogroms during the occupation of

Lvov and Kovno, but they were carried out by the local population. He

assured me at the same time that the German authorities had taken steps

against these pogroms. Nevertheless the references to such things caused

me to criticize matters severely, even though these things today look

almost insignificant compared with what we know of today. My criticism

was directed against my superiors, particularly Dr. Goebbels, and also

against co-workers and members of the Gestapo and of the Party. I

referred repeatedly to the legal, political, and moral necessity of

protecting these Jews, who, after all, had been entrusted to our care.

DR. FRITZ: Did you learn anything else about the fate of these Jews?

FRITZSCHE: On several occasions Jews or relatives or friends of Jews

appealed to me because of discrimination or arrests. A large number of

non-Jews also did this as my name had become well-known to the public.

Without exception, I made their pleas my own and I tried to help through

various offices such as the RSHA, through the personnel section of my

Ministry, through individual ministers and Gauleiter, _et cetera_.

DR. FRITZ: Why did you turn to so many different authorities and

offices?

FRITZSCHE: Very many requests were involved, and if my name had appeared

too often at the same office its effectiveness would have been exhausted

very quickly.

DR. FRITZ: Did you on occasion turn down these requests?

FRITZSCHE: No, not in one single instance, and I should like to

emphasize that particularly because a letter addressed to me in this

prison here was not handed over to me but was published in the press. It

was a letter in which a woman asserted that I had turned down a request

for pardon. I remember this case specifically and I should like to

emphasize briefly that in this case I had expressly called on the Reich

Minister of Justice...

THE PRESIDENT: It is sufficient for him to say that he did not turn them

down. We do not want one instance of somebody who wrote to him.

How long are you going to be, Dr. Fritz?

DR. FRITZ: I believe I shall be able to conclude the entire Fritzsche

case tomorrow morning.

Mr. President, I have heard that there is no open session this

afternoon...

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

DR. FRITZ: ...otherwise I would have been able to conclude the entire

Fritzsche case today. However, I hope to be able to conclude my

examination of the defendant in his own case and that of the witness Von

Schirmeister. I hope that tomorrow noon I shall be able to conclude.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal hopes so too, because, as I have pointed out

to you, we do not want you to go into such elaborate detail. You have

been going, in the opinion of the Tribunal, far too much into detail,

and we want the matter dealt with more generally.

[_The Tribunal adjourned until 28 June 1946 at 1000 hours._]

ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIXTH DAY

Friday, 28 June 1946

_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.”