FRITZSCHE: But I must have an opportunity to answer the last question. I
wish to state that I was by no means in favor of biological warfare, but
the situation was merely this: Every day piles of letters came in from
listeners and these were passed on by one of the departments to the
office competent to deal with the matter concerned and the accompanying
letter, which consisted of two or three lines, was submitted to me for
signature. As a rule I did not read the contents of the letters.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, do you want to re-examine?
DR. FRITZ: Herr Fritzsche, just now during General Rudenko’s
cross-examination you were asked about the radio speech of 2 May 1940 in
which you spoke about your journey to Norway. Can you tell me more
exactly when you went on that trip?
FRITZSCHE: I am afraid I cannot tell you the date exactly, but if I am
not mistaken it was at the end of April.
DR. FRITZ: The official report of the Norwegian Government on war damage
after Norway’s occupation by the Germans was put to you. Here it is said
that the fighting which had caused this damage could not have taken
place until after you had already completed your journey. Is that true?
FRITZSCHE: That is quite possible, but I should like to say this: In the
extract which the Russian prosecutor has read without quoting the
beginning, I described precisely what I had seen in clearly stated
places; Lillehammer and Godenthal are a few names which occur to me now.
To compare these statements now with the statements made by the
Norwegian Government regarding the total damage is nothing less than the
attempt to measure a liquid with a yard measure or vice versa.
DR. FRITZ: I have one other question in this connection. Was this
journey of yours carried out before the British landing in Norway or
afterward?
FRITZSCHE: I myself had an opportunity to watch a fight with British
troops. I think it was just south of a place called Ottar in the
Buldrenthal.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, General Rudenko, during his cross-examination,
submitted three interrogation records. One was from Voss, USSR-471, one
from Schörner, USSR-472, and one from Stahel, USSR-473. In the meantime
I have looked through these three records and I should like to ask the
High Tribunal also to compare these three records. I have ascertained
that in these three records, of the statements of three different
persons, parts of the answers are repeated; and they tally, word for
word. It says, for example...
THE PRESIDENT: You are not getting this from the witness; you are making
an argument to us, and you must do that at some other time.
DR. FRITZ: I just wanted to make an application, Mr. President. If these
three records are used for the findings, then I wish to make an
application that at least one of these persons who were interrogated be
brought here in person for the purpose of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you meaning that you should see, or that we should
examine, the whole of those three affidavits, or were you meaning that
you wanted one of the people who made the affidavits to come here in
order to give evidence and be cross-examined? Which do you mean?
DR. FRITZ: The latter, Mr. President. I should merely like to request
that all three be summoned.
FRITZSCHE: All three. I can only ask to have all three called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider your application.
DR. FRITZ: Apart from this, Mr. President, I do not wish to carry out
any further redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one thing, Defendant. You referred to the
Commissar Decree, or order, and you spoke of it as though it were an
order not to treat commissars as prisoners of war. That was not the
order, was it? The order was to kill them.
FRITZSCHE: The order which I got to know about in the 6th Army was an
order saying that commissars who had been captured should be shot.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That is a very different thing from not being
treated as prisoners of war. The answer you gave was that you imagined
the Commissar Order came from Hitler, but it is a very different thing,
an order not to treat commissars as ordinary prisoners of war and to
kill 5 million Jews. That was not a fair comparison at all, was it?
FRITZSCHE: In this case I must admit that my way of expressing myself
with reference to these commissars was not correct.
THE PRESIDENT: There is one other thing I want to ask you. In October
1939 this untruthful statement about the _Athenia_ was published in a
German newspaper. That is right, is it not?
FRITZSCHE: In October 1939? During the whole of September and October
untruthful statements about the _Athenia_ were made in the German press
as well as on the German radio.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. But on the 23d of October 1939 a particularly
untruthful statement attributing the sinking of the _Athenia_ to Mr.
Winston Churchill was made in a German newspaper. You told us about it.
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you continued to broadcast referring to those alleged
facts for some time, did you not?
FRITZSCHE: Of course, because at the time I was still under the
impression that they were true and my...
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I wanted to ask you about. You had a naval
liaison officer in your office?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What inquiries did you make?
FRITZSCHE: This naval officer was not actually the liaison officer
between us and the High Command of the Navy. He was censorship officer
for the entire Armed Forces. Nevertheless I naturally called on his
services in connection with naval matters. And several times I ordered
him, or rather, requested him to find out from the High Command of the
Navy how the investigation of the Athenia case stood. The answer was
always the same: “The position still is that no German submarine was
near the place of the catastrophe.”
THE PRESIDENT: And are you saying that that liaison officer of the Navy
told you that after the 23d of October 1939?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Did he continue to tell you that?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. He may return to the dock.
Yes, Dr. Fritz?
DR. FRITZ: Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to
call the witness Herr Von Schirmeister.
[_The witness Von Schirmeister took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name, please?
MORITZ VON SCHIRMEISTER (Witness): Moritz von Schirmeister.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath._]
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, before beginning your examination, I should like to
ask you to make your answers quite general and as brief as possible.
Will you please give the Tribunal very briefly some particulars of your
career, so that the Tribunal may know more about you.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I come from a family of officers and civil servants;
studied theology for three terms; 10 years as a banking official, 5 of
them in South America; then editor until my appointment in Berlin; on 1
October 1931 I became a member of the Party; SS Hauptsturmführer in the
Allgemeine SS; during the war four times a soldier; the last time from
31 July 1944 on; on 22 September 1944 prisoner of war in British hands;
since then I have been in Great Britain.
DR. FRITZ: When I discussed the subject of your examination with you a
few days ago, you told me that your former positive attitude toward
National Socialism would not prevent you in any way from making truthful
statements here, is that true?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I have already told you that I believed in this cause,
that I have sacrificed everything to it, that I have lost everything
through it. It was very bitter for me. But today I know that I have
served a bad cause. I have freed myself entirely of it. In my last camp
in England I was permitted to assist in the re-education of my comrades.
There I was allowed to edit the camp newspaper. And if I only could,
then I would help today to rebuild a democratic Germany.
DR. FRITZ: When did you become acquainted with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: On 1 July 1938.
DR. FRITZ: What were you at the time? What position were you to occupy?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I was an editor in Braunschweig and I was called to
the Ministry of Propaganda in order to become Dr. Goebbels’ personal
press expert.
DR. FRITZ: What position did you actually occupy in the Ministry of
Propaganda?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to 1 July 1943 I was Dr. Goebbels’ personal press
expert; then I was personal expert to State Secretary Dr. Gutterer until
1 April 1944; then I went with him for 3 months to the UFI which was the
controlling company of all film companies. Then, on 31 July 1944, I went
to the front.
DR. FRITZ: Did you have daily contact with Dr. Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes, since the outbreak of the war. Let me describe
briefly what my main activities were.
DR. FRITZ: Very briefly, please.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: During the war I had to look through all the news and
propaganda material coming in from enemy broadcasting stations and
regularly submit extracts from it to Goebbels. These extracts formed the
basis for Dr. Goebbels’ propaganda instructions which he himself issued
every morning. In the afternoon and evening I had to telephone them to
the press section and radio section. So that during the war, except when
my deputies took my place, I was with Dr. Goebbels in his apartment, I
took my meals with him, slept in his house, accompanied him on journeys,
and so on.
DR. FRITZ: What position did Fritzsche occupy at the time?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche in those days was the deputy chief in
the department Home Press.
DR. FRITZ: Will you please describe the nature and importance of
Fritzsche’s position in the Propaganda Ministry also during the period
which followed. Very briefly, please.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I was to get acquainted with the work of the
department Home Press. Conditions there were as bad as they could be.
The chief, Herr Berndt, adopted undisguised table-thumping tactics. He
went about barking out commands and sacking editors en masse.
In ability and knowledge the officials in charge were inferior to the
average editor. The only steadying influence was Herr Fritzsche; he was
the only expert. He knew the needs and requirements of the press. On the
one hand he had to mend the china which Herr Berndt was constantly
smashing and on the other hand he tried to replace inefficient officials
in the organization with better ones.
DR. FRITZ: Would it be correct to say, therefore, that Defendant
Fritzsche was not appointed as an exponent of the Party, but as an
expert?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Only as an expert. The extremist Party men in the
Ministry did not give Fritzsche his full due. But as an expert he was
then and later the good spirit of the press.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche one of those collaborators in the Ministry who
had regular conferences with Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: These regular conferences had not yet begun to be held
in those days, and Fritzsche did not partake in them in any case.
DR. FRITZ: So that he was not consulted until he became a department
chief?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes; only as far as such conferences were taking
place, but actually only since the outbreak of war.
DR. FRITZ: In what way did Dr. Goebbels confer with his associates?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: After the war broke out there were daily conferences
at 1100 hours, which were presided over by Dr. Goebbels personally and
at which he gave all necessary propaganda instructions.
DR. FRITZ: How many people attended these 11 o’clock meetings?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: At the beginning, that is to say, up to the beginning
of the Russian campaign, about 20 people. Later the circle grew to about
50 people.
DR. FRITZ: Were there discussions during these conferences or was it
more or less the giving out of orders?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: There was no discussion during these conferences.
First of all, the liaison officer from the OKW would give a survey of
the military situation and then Dr. Goebbels would give his instructions
regarding propaganda, mostly for the press, the radio, and the
newsreels.
DR. FRITZ: Who presided over the conferences when Dr. Goebbels was not
present?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Normally the State Secretary.
DR. FRITZ: And who presided when the State Secretary was not there
either?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Usually Herr Fritzsche, sometimes also the head of the
foreign press department or the foreign department, but mostly Herr
Fritzsche.
DR. FRITZ: Did Fritzsche in these cases give the daily propaganda
instructions on his own initiative or how was that done?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No; if the Minister was not in Berlin, he was kept
informed about news material coming in from abroad. He would then give
the instructions to me or to one of my deputies in the same way as he
did during the conferences. I had to pass on these instructions by
telephone. In Berlin they were taken down by stenographers and then read
out during the conference verbatim as instructions coming from the
Minister. By the way, this must be seen by the minutes of the meetings.
They were always called “Instructions from the Minister.”
DR. FRITZ: If Fritzsche used written instructions such as you have
described, given by Dr. Goebbels, did he not try to clear up questions
which Goebbels had not dealt with, by bringing them up for discussion?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: When Dr. Goebbels was farther away from Berlin, it
might happen that the latest news did not reach him in time. In these
cases Herr Fritzsche would bring things up for discussion, consider the
pros and cons and then give instructions on his own initiative. That was
then put down in writing; the Minister read it afterward and he either
approved it or altered it.
DR. FRITZ: But then, surely apart from the big conferences with 30 or 50
people present at which Goebbels gave his instructions there must have
been more confidential conferences as well.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In the course of the morning, naturally, individual
department chiefs also came for official discussions with the Minister.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche also called to these more confidential
conferences?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Generally, no. The Minister used the conferences at
which all departments were represented to summarize whatever he had to
say for the press, radio, and newsreels. The heads of those departments
whose special functions were not of interest to the others, came for
individual conferences.
DR. FRITZ: How often was Herr Fritzsche consulted as compared with, say,
the state secretaries—Hahnke, Gutterer, and Dr. Naumann?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: The state secretaries could always be present during
these individual conferences and so could the personal advisers who were
always there. Herr Fritzsche was very rarely present at these individual
conferences.
DR. FRITZ: What was the position of the 12 department heads of the
Ministry of Propaganda, one of whom was the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: These department heads can be classified into experts
on the one side, such as, for instance, the head of the budget
department, Dr. Ott, and confirmed Party men on the other side as, for
instance, Herr Berndt. Officially they had not a particle of the
authority which was normally exercised by a department head in a
ministry. It was generally known that the Minister was using them as
tools and that when he did not need them any more he would throw them
out. That did not apply to the department heads only. I remember the
unworthy manner in which he threw out State Secretary Gutterer when he
had enough of him.
DR. FRITZ: The Indictment accuses Fritzsche of having made of Germany’s
news agencies, radio, and press an instrument that played an important
part in the hands of the so-called conspirators in carrying out their
plans. Was Fritzsche responsible for the organization of the press in
the National Socialist State and what can you say to this charge?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: When Herr Fritzsche entered the Ministry, this press
department had been set up and organized for some time. Moreover, I can
also say that even Dr. Goebbels himself cannot be regarded as belonging
to this circle of conspirators as defined by the Indictment; for, after
all, he did not want to drive us into war, but always advocated the
conquest of countries without bloodshed.
DR. FRITZ: So that the organization was already set up when Fritzsche
took over the department German Press in the winter of 1938-39?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes, already completely organized.
DR. FRITZ: As the head of that department was Fritzsche independent? If
not, who was his superior?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Unfortunately Fritzsche was not only subordinate as
department chief to Dr. Goebbels, but he also stood between two fires.
On the other side there was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich, and the
entire German press knew about this discord between the two. Although
Reich Press Chief, as State Secretary, was a staff member of the
Ministry of Propaganda, nevertheless he demanded the right to be able to
give orders independently in his capacity of Reich Press Chief. If,
therefore, the Minister and the Reich Press Chief did not agree on a
certain point, then it was the unfortunate chief of the department
German Press who bore the brunt of this.
DR. FRITZ: In what way was Fritzsche active in the press organization?
Did he tighten the fetters or did he try to loosen them?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I have already said that Herr Fritzsche was the only
real expert of any caliber who worked in the press department. He knew
the needs, the worries, and the requirements of the press. He knew that
an editor could work only if you give him a certain amount of freedom,
and thus always and at every opportunity he fought to have the fetters
loosened. He did much more than was apparent to the outside world, for
the Minister would make such and such a decision and the outside world
would come to know only what the Minister wanted.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you think he has answered the question?
DR. FRITZ: Did Dr. Goebbels have any objections to the way the press
worked? Was it not aggressive enough for him? Please be very brief.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No, it was not aggressive and not obdurate enough for
him.
DR. FRITZ: And how did Fritzsche react to such demands both with
reference to individual journalists and with reference to the newspapers
as a whole?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Again and again, at every opportunity, both during the
conferences presided over by the Minister and at private meetings with
the Minister, he spoke on behalf of the press and the journalists and
tried to represent their point of view to the Minister.
DR. FRITZ: Can you mention a few names of journalists or papers whom
Fritzsche tried to protect in the manner described?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, why should he give the names of individual
journalists and papers? Isn’t it too detailed to go into that?
DR. FRITZ: Very well; but Mr. President, may I, in that case, at least
offer an affidavit in connection with this question as Document Number
Fritzsche-5. It is in my Document Book Number 2 on Page 22. It comes
from the editor of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_, Dr. Wendelin Hecht, and I
should like to quote it very briefly:
“I herewith make the following affidavit for submission to the
International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg:
“1. It is true that the Defendant Hans Fritzsche also helped to
protect the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ for several years against a
ban by withholding copies of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_ from the
Führer’s headquarters.
“2. In the numerous attacks directed against the _Frankfurter
Zeitung_ because of its political attitude the Defendant Hans
Fritzsche repeatedly intervened in favor of the continued
publication of the _Frankfurter Zeitung_.
“Leutkirch, 6 March 1946. Dr. Wendelin Hecht.”
What other influential persons, apart from Dr. Goebbels, were there in
the Ministry of Propaganda?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: After State Secretary Hahnke’s departure there was
only one man in the Ministry of Propaganda who had any real influence on
the Minister, only one man with whom Dr. Goebbels had some personal
relations, and that was his first personal adviser, Dr. Naumann, who
later became his state secretary.
DR. FRITZ: Did Fritzsche come to you frequently to learn more about the
Minister’s views because the Minister did not inform Defendant
Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Very often, because Herr Fritzsche knew that I also
had many private conversations with the Minister and he always
complained that he was left in suspense and all at sea, and he asked me
if I could not tell him the Minister’s view about this or that matter. I
did succeed in helping him by occasionally arranging for him to be
invited by Dr. Goebbels to private meetings in which I spoke openly
about Herr Fritzsche’s needs.
DR. FRITZ: Did Goebbels keep the radio strictly under his own control?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: During the war the radio was for Dr. Goebbels the most
important instrument of propaganda. He did not keep such a strict watch
on any department as he did on the radio department. At meetings over
which he presided he personally decided the most minute details of the
artistic program...
DR. FRITZ: That is enough, Witness. Was Fritzsche really the leading man
of German broadcasting, as he appeared to the outside world?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: By no means. The leading man was Dr. Goebbels himself.
Apart from that, Fritzsche here again was between two stools, because on
the other side demands came in from the Foreign Office with reference to
foreign broadcasts.
DR. FRITZ: Was Fritzsche in his radio speeches perhaps too halfhearted
for Dr. Goebbels?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I myself, by order of the Minister, repeatedly had to
reprimand Fritzsche, because the former claimed that his broadcasts were
much too weak.
DR. FRITZ: Did Goebbels also praise him? And if so in what manner?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: If, as was often the case, the Minister did praise
Fritzsche...
THE PRESIDENT: We haven’t any interest in whether Goebbels praised him.
DR. FRITZ: Then another question: Did Defendant Fritzsche ever
contradict the Minister?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche was one of the few people in the
Ministry of Propaganda who did contradict the Minister, both during
conferences and in his apartment. He was always calm and determined and
often it had a certain effect.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, may I have your permission to draw your
attention at this point to a document, an affidavit by Scharping,
Document Number Fritzsche-2, which has already been mentioned
frequently. It is at the end of Page 7 and the beginning of Page 8 in my
Document Book Number 2. Might I perhaps quote one short sentence: “At
the so-called ministerial conferences it was Fritzsche alone who
contradicted Goebbels on political questions.”
Witness, who was responsible for the definitely false or exaggerated
news in the German press during the Sudeten crisis?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That was Alfred Ingemar Berndt, the head of the
department. At that time he spent whole nights pouring over General
Staff maps, directories, and lists of names, using them to fabricate
atrocity reports from the Sudetenland. Herr Fritzsche watched this with
anxiety. He came to me once and asked me, “What are we drifting into?
Are we not drifting into war? If only we knew what they really want at
the top and what is behind it all.”
DR. FRITZ: And then another question on the same subject. Did Goebbels,
in connection with any military or political actions, which were being
carried out or were to be carried out, ever consult beforehand with the
Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Not only did he not consult with Herr Fritzsche, but
with nobody at all. The Minister never had any such consultations.
DR. FRITZ: Fritzsche asserts that he did not hear of Dr. Goebbels’
instigation of the anti-Semitic excesses in November 1938 until much
later, a remark made by Dr. Goebbels himself. That does not sound very
credible, because, after all, Defendant Fritzsche was a close associate
of Dr. Goebbels. Can you give us an explanation?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In 1938 certainly none of us in the Ministry realized
that Dr. Goebbels was the instigator. During the night in question Dr.
Goebbels was not in Berlin. As far as I remember, just before that he
had been to see the Führer and he was still in southern Germany. The
conversation which you have just mentioned did not take place until the
middle of the war. It took place at Lanke, where the Minister had a
house and it was on an occasion when Herr Fritzsche had also been
invited. Someone put the direct question to the Minister as to the cause
of these excesses of November 1938. Thereupon Dr. Goebbels said that the
National Socialist economic leadership had come to the conclusion that
the elimination of Jewry from Germany’s economy could not be carried out
further...
DR. FRITZ: Witness, excuse me, that is enough. We have heard about it
already today. Did Fritzsche later on—I believe it is supposed to have
been in June 1944—talk to you about his general attitude toward the
Jewish problem?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In May or June 1944 I talked to Fritzsche in his
apartment about the fact that on the day of these outrages he had said
to me, “Schirmeister, can one participate in this sort of thing and
still be a decent human being?” And then Herr Fritzsche said to me, “You
know, I have really always been an anti-Semitic, but only in the sense
that some of the Jews themselves also were.” And he mentioned a Jewish
newspaper, I believe the _C. V. Zeitung_...
DR. FRITZ: That is enough, Witness. Then how do you explain Fritzsche’s
anti-Semitic statements in various of his radio speeches?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: They had been ordered by the Minister. We had seen
from the British press that a certain anti-Semitic current in Britain
was growing, but a law in England stopped this from appearing in the
British press. Now the Minister tried to find a common factor against
which our propaganda abroad could be directed. This common factor was
the Jew.
To give support to the foreign propaganda by the Reich, Herr Fritzsche
received orders that in Germany, too, he should touch upon this subject
in some of his broadcasts.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be in concluding the case
of the Defendant Fritzsche?
DR. FRITZ: I think three-quarters of an hour at the most, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, after that the Tribunal will continue the case
of the Defendant Bormann until 1 o’clock tomorrow.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 29 June 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY
Saturday, 29 June 1946
_Morning Session_
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with the supplementary applications for
documents.
The first application on this list was on behalf of the Defendant Von
Neurath, and that has been dealt with.
The second was on behalf of the Defendant Streicher. That was withdrawn.
The third was on behalf of the Defendant Dönitz for an affidavit of
former Fleet Judge Jäckel. That application is granted.
The next two, 4 and 5, were on behalf of the Defendant Von Neurath.
Those have been withdrawn.
The next three, 6, 7, and 8, on behalf of the Defendant Rosenberg, are
denied.
The next, on behalf of the Defendant Von Papen, have all been dealt with
during the presentation of the defense on behalf of Von Papen.
The next two, on behalf of the Defendant Bormann, are granted.
The last three, 12, 13, and 14, on behalf of the Defendant Göring, are
subject to the possibility of agreement being reached upon the question
of whether affidavits are to be presented or witnesses called, and
therefore that application is postponed.
That is all.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal goes on with the
business of the day, I should like to inform the Tribunal of the results
of my inquiries as to outstanding witnesses and perhaps these could be
supplemented by any of the learned counsel who can.
My Lord, as far as I can see, there are the witnesses whom Your Lordship
has just mentioned of the Defendant Göring, dealing with the question of
Katyn.
My Lord, the next witnesses that were outstanding were three that the
Tribunal allowed to be called for cross-examination if desired in
respect to the case of the Defendant Kaltenbrunner. I have just had a
word with Dr. Kauffmann, and he says that he will not require the
witnesses Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp for cross-examination.
As far as my information goes, the next is Admiral Böhm in the case of
the Defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you get to that, Sir David, on the list that I
have there was a witness called Strupp for Kaltenbrunner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, My Lord, there are three, Tiefenbacher,
Steinbauer, and Strupp. Dr. Kauffmann tells me he does not want these.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you were speaking about the Defendant
Raeder.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, there is the question of Admiral Böhm.
Dr. Siemers was going to let the Prosecution see an affidavit, and I
have not seen it yet; but, My Lord, I do not anticipate that the
Prosecution will require that witness unless the affidavit is in very
different form from what I expect.
My Lord, the only other witnesses that I know about are the three for
which application was made by Dr. Fritz yesterday in the present case.
The Tribunal is considering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, that, as far as I can see, is the full
extent of the outstanding witnesses, unless I have missed some.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there an application for witnesses from the Defendant
Bormann on the 26th of June?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Well, I asked Bergold this morning. He has only
got one witness that he is calling, he told me, who unfortunately is not
here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am told he has just now arrived.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, Your Lordship’s information is later
than mine.
THE PRESIDENT: It has only this moment come through.
But so far as the others are concerned, there is only the one that Dr.
Bergold wants to call now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: So Dr. Bergold informed me this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, only one witness has arrived. But
I have put in several more requests which have not been decided on, and
I cannot say whether these witnesses will ever arrive or whether they
can be found. The Bormann case is characterized by the fact that not
only the defendant cannot be found but almost all the witnesses cannot
be found either. In the course of today’s proceedings on the Bormann
case I should like to put a special application before the High Tribunal
which I do not wish to do just now.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you tell us exactly which witnesses you
are referring to?
In your letter of the 29th of June you withdraw your application for
Fräulein Christians.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Klöpfer is the witness who just arrived in Nuremberg.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes. Then there are the witnesses Kupfer and Rattenhuber
who are still not here and also the witness Christians.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Helmut Friedrich has not been located?
DR. BERGOLD: No, he has not been found.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you wanting to call Fräulein Christians?
DR. BERGOLD: She has not yet arrived either. She was at Camp Oberursel.
She received leave and while on leave disappeared—obviously she has
fled.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your application of 26 June or did you make
an application of 26 June?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did make an application.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you ask for then?
DR. BERGOLD: Just a minute, I have to consult my secretary.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Fräulein Christians and Dr. Helmut Friedrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klöpfer and Friedrich.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Yes, and Fräulein Christians, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: On 26 June I applied for the witnesses Falkenhorst,
Rattenhuber, and Kempka. I could dispense with Falkenhorst if I might
have Dr. Klöpfer instead.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Klöpfer is the only one who has arrived, as I
understand it.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, the only one who has arrived, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What the Tribunal wants to know is how many you want to
call now, and with reference to the others you had better withdraw them
if you cannot find them.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, Your Lordship, I wanted to put in an application
for postponement. The witness Dr. Klöpfer has only just arrived. Up to
now I have not had a chance to talk to him and I consider it unjust for
him to have to testify here for the first time. Moreover, he is not
prepared, he does not know the documents which have been presented by
the Prosecution, and I myself do not know whether he has any knowledge
about the things on which I want to question him. Therefore, I should
like to apply for the proceedings in the case of Bormann to be postponed
until 10 o’clock on Monday to give me the opportunity to hear my one
chief witness and to discuss the case with him. I do not even know
whether I want to have the witness interrogated for he may possibly make
statements that are quite irrelevant. It is not my fault that I have not
heard him until now. I applied many months ago to have him brought here
and I would not have found him even today if at the last moment I had
not had the very kind assistance of the American Prosecution. I
believe—I have also spoken to Sir Maxwell-Fyfe—a postponement until
Monday at 10 o’clock would be quite proper for my case in order to give
me at least time to prepare; if not—my defendant has not been here and
my witnesses have not been here and I have not been able to prepare
anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, you have had many months in which to
prepare your case and the Tribunal has put the matter back for you
already for a very long time and this witness is now here. You can see
him immediately and the Tribunal thinks you ought to go on. You must
have known that the case would come on, in the same way every other case
has come on, in its proper place, subject to the license which has been
allowed to you to have your case put back to the end and all your
applications for witnesses and documents put back to the very latest
possible moment; and the witness is here and we still have some time to
deal with the witnesses for Fritzsche and documents.
The Tribunal thinks in those circumstances you ought to go on.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, it is quite correct I have had months at my
disposal; but if I can obtain no witnesses and no information—I ask the
Tribunal to put themselves in my place. What is the use to me of waiting
many months in vain, months during which I could do nothing. The
witnesses were not here, nobody could tell me where the witness Klöpfer
could be found. He was only found at the very last moment. I cannot
discuss the entire case with him in 15 minutes. I am just asking for a
very short postponement until Monday morning. The Tribunal will lose
only a very few hours through that. It is not my fault that I have been
assigned such an unusual defendant, one who is not present.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the only thing you propose to prove by this
witness is the alleged fact that Bormann is dead and any evidence he can
give about that. That is what the application says.
DR. BERGOLD: No, may it please the Court, that is a mistake. The witness
Klöpfer cannot testify as to that. He can only give his opinion as to
the rest of the Indictment, namely whether Bormann is guilty or not.
Only the witnesses Christians, Lueger, and Rattenhuber can give evidence
as to the death of the Defendant Bormann. But the witness Klöpfer can
only testify concerning the Indictment itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the application for Klöpfer? Where is your
application?
DR. BERGOLD: It is my application of 26 May.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me see it. Have you got it there? Dr. Bergold, do you
not have anything else at all in the way of documents or evidence that
you can continue with without calling this witness Klöpfer?
DR. BERGOLD: My Lord, what I have is so small and meager that I myself
do not know whether it is relevant until I have questioned the witness.
Up to this point I have been dependent on pure supposition. I have not
been able to receive or obtain any effective data. They are all legal
constructions which can be made untenable by one word from the witness.
MR. THOMAS J. DODD (Executive Trial Counsel for the United States): Mr.
President, I have an objection to any postponement for this case. As the
Court has pointed out, counsel has had months and he had every
co-operation from our office, both for his documents and for his seeking
out of his witnesses; and if he would stop talking and go out and talk
with his witness, who is here now, I think he might be prepared to go on
with his case.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the Tribunal will go on with the case
against the Defendant Fritzsche now, and in the meantime, you will have
an opportunity of seeing this witness Klöpfer; and if after seeing him
you wish to make further application, you may do so; but the Tribunal
hopes that, if you can ascertain what the nature of his evidence is,
that you will be able to go on with it.
I now have your—I had it only in German before—but I now have in
English your application for the witness Klöpfer, and a summary of it is
that he was head of Section III in the Party Chancellery and he can deal
with questions relating to the drafting and elaboration of laws and that
he is to testify that the activity of Bormann in the proclamation of
laws and ordinances was an entirely subordinate one. That is the only
reason why you allege that you want to call him in your application.
DR. BERGOLD: That is my supposition. There is the possibility that the
witness, of course, really knows much more, for he was one of the chief
collaborators. I drew up my applications very carefully, because as a
lawyer I did not want to submit a fantasy to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have said what you can do with reference to
Klöpfer, and are you still asking to call a witness called Falkenhorst?
DR. BERGOLD: I can only decide on that after I have talked with the
witness Klöpfer. In all probability I shall forego the calling of this
witness Falkenhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you heard what I said, Dr. Bergold. You can now see
Dr. Klöpfer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I only wanted the Tribunal to know that
that was the position as to witnesses; and when Your Lordship asked me,
I said that the process of finishing off witnesses might take 2 days. My
Lord, subject to the Katyn witnesses, it might take much shorter than
that, as I am at present advised.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And when shall we be informed what the position is
with reference to the Katyn witnesses, as to whether there is an
agreement as to using affidavits or calling witnesses?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I will make inquiries and try to let
Your Lordship know at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it that we shall not be able to go into that this
morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I do not think so. Apart from that, there are
certain outstanding interrogatories which Counsel for the Defense may
want to refer the Tribunal to; but that is the only other matter I know.
From the point of view of the Prosecution, there may be a few documents
which will be put in more or less to clarify points that have arisen
during the case, rather than formal evidence and rebuttal. They will be
quite small in number and Will not take any time.
THE PRESIDENT: Were there any documents on behalf of the Defendant Von
Neurath which have got to be dealt with?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My recollection is that there were one or two
interrogatories, but apart from that I do not know of any others.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps those matters had better be gone into on Monday
morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: If Your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal hopes that counsel for the defendants
understand that the Tribunal will expect them to be prepared to go on
with their speeches on behalf of the defendants directly the evidence is
finished.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, it is to try to give some indication of
the time that I ventured to intervene this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understand it, the proposal is that
Professor Jahrreiss will make his general speech first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand the professor is ready to do that
and I thought it would be useful if it were known that that might occur
even on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, now, Dr. Fritz, perhaps you will continue with
your witness.
[_The witness Von Schirmeister resumed the stand._]
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, I beg to be
permitted to continue with the examination of the witness Von
Schirmeister.
Witness, yesterday, at the end of the session, we stopped at the point
dealing with the anti-Semitism expressed by the Defendant Fritzsche in
his radio speeches; in connection with that point, I have a further
question. According to the statement made by Dr. Goebbels, to where were
the Jews evacuated?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to the first year of the Russian campaign, Dr.
Goebbels in the conferences over which he presided, repeatedly mentioned
the Madagascar plan. Later he changed this and said that a new Jewish
state was to be formed in the East, to which the Jews were to be taken.
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether, in dealing with reports from abroad
concerning alleged German atrocities, not only towards the Jews but
towards other peoples as well, Fritzsche always had inquiries made at
the RSHA or other authorities concerned?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Yes. Not only with regard to atrocity reports but all
propaganda reports from abroad which were embarrassing to us. He made
inquiries sometimes at the office of Müller, at the RSHA in Berlin, and
sometimes he inquired of the authorities that were directly concerned in
these matters.
DR. FRITZ: And what other agencies were concerned besides the RSHA where
he might have made inquiries?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: For example, the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the
Armament Ministry, the OKW; it all depended.
DR. FRITZ: Do you know whether in reply to such inquiries a clear and
completely plausible denial was given, or how was a matter of this sort
handled?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: There were not always denials, not at all; very
frequently we had quite precise answers. For example, if it was asserted
that there had been a strike in Bohemia-Moravia, then the answer was:
Yes, in such and such a factory a strike took place. But always and
without exception, there was a very definite denial of concentration
camp atrocities and so forth. That is precisely why these denials were
so widely believed. I must emphasize that this was our only possibility
of getting information. These pieces of information were not intended
for the public, but for the minister, and again and again the answer
came: “No, there is no word of truth in this.” Even today I do not know
by what other means we could have obtained information.
DR. FRITZ: Can you say anything about Fritzsche’s attitude on church
questions?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Herr Fritzsche adopted the views taken by the minister
during the war. At the beginning of the war, the minister demanded
complete cessation of the strife regarding this question, for anything
which could have brought dissension among the German people would have
had a disturbing influence. I do not know whether I should go into
further details.
DR. FRITZ: No, I shall turn to another very important topic. Do you know
what reasons Goebbels gave to his assistants for the various military
actions of Germany?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: He gave no reasons of his own at all. He only added
his comments to the announcements coming from the Führer.
DR. FRITZ: To quote some examples, can you say briefly whether the
Defendant Fritzsche knew in advance that a military attack was being
planned on first, Poland; second, Belgium and Holland; third,
Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: In the case of Poland, we knew of course that the
question of Danzig and the Corridor was awaiting a decision. But Dr.
Goebbels himself repeatedly assured us, and he himself believed, that
this question would not lead to war because, completely mistaken in his
view of the attitude of the Western Powers, he was convinced that they
were only bluffing and that Poland would not risk a war without the
military support of the Western Powers.
DR. FRITZ: What about Belgium and Holland?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: On the day before the attack on Belgium and Holland
events were overshadowed by the state visit of the Italian Minister
Pavolini. In the evening there was a performance at the theater and
afterwards a reception in the House of the Airmen. At night Dr. Goebbels
went with me to the ministry where he occasionally spent the night.
During the night I had to telephone to several gentlemen; and in the
morning the minister, in my presence, presented to Herr Fritzsche the
two announcements which were then broadcast, the first containing the
military reasons and the second containing the secret service reasons.
Herr Fritzsche did not even have time to look at these announcements;
moreover, he had a sore throat and I had to read the second broadcast,
with the secret service reasons; I also had not seen these announcements
beforehand.
DR. FRITZ: What about Yugoslavia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: The same thing happened. In the evening the minister
had dismissed his adjutant, had given him leave. During the night I had
to call the various gentlemen over the phone and ask them to assemble;
and early in the morning the statement, which up to that time had been
completely unknown to us, was read to us over the radio.
DR. FRITZ: And what happened in the case of the attack on the Soviet
Union?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That was even more preposterous. Before the attack on
the Soviet Union, the minister, for purposes of camouflage, had lied to
his own department chiefs. Around the beginning of May he selected 10 of
his colleagues out of the 20 who ordinarily participated in the
conferences, and he told them:
“Gentlemen, I know that some of you think that we are going to
fight Russia, but I must tell you today that we are going to
fight England; the invasion is imminent. Please adapt your work
accordingly. You, Dr. Glasmeier, will launch a new propaganda
campaign against England...”
These were impudent lies told to his own department chiefs for purposes
of camouflage.
DR. FRITZ: Are you implying that no one in the Propaganda Ministry knew
of the imminent campaign against Russia?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No. The following gentlemen in the Propaganda Ministry
knew about the Russian campaign—if I may presume, a letter to Dr.
Goebbels from Lammers offered a clue for it, for in it Lammers told the
minister in confidence that the Führer intended to appoint Herr
Rosenberg to be Minister for the Occupied Eastern Territories; the
letter also asked Dr. Goebbels to name a liaison man from our ministry
to Herr Rosenberg personally, and that, of course, gave away the secret.
The people who knew of this were the minister; Herr Hadamowsky, as his
provisional personal representative; Dr. Tauber, the liaison man to be
appointed; I, myself, because by accident I had read this letter; and
the head of the foreign press department, Dr. Böhme. Dr. Böhme, and this
is very important, told me on the day before his arrest in the presence
of Prince Schaumburg-Lippe that he had received this information from
Rosenberg’s circle, that is—and I want to emphasize this—not from our
ministry or from our minister. Otherwise, as heads of two parallel
departments, both would, of course, have been informed. If Böhme did not
know it from the minister, then Herr Fritzsche could not have known it
either. As a result of a careless remark on this subject, Böhme was
arrested on the following day and later killed in action.
DR. FRITZ: Now I want to summarize this part of my examination in the
following general question: Did you ever notice that before important
political or military actions of the Government or the NSDAP, Goebbels
exchanged ideas about future plans with the Defendant Fritzsche?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: It is quite impossible that that occurred; it would
have been in complete contradiction to the minister’s principles. Not
only did he not exchange ideas on future plans but he did not even
inform anyone.
DR. FRITZ: Now we shall turn to a different subject. The Prosecution
charges the Defendant Fritzsche with having influenced the German people
in the idea of the master race and thus with having incited hatred
against other nations. Did Fritzsche ever receive instructions at all to
conduct a propaganda campaign on behalf of the theory of the master
race?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No, under no circumstances. In this connection, one
must know that Dr. Goebbels could not at all use this Party dogma and
myth. These are not things which attract the masses. To him the Party
was a large reservoir in which as many different sections of the German
people as possible should be united; and particularly this idea of the
master race, perhaps on account of his own physical disability, he
ridiculed and rejected completely; it did not appeal to him. Shall I
answer the question of hatred now? You also asked me about that.
DR. FRITZ: Yes.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: A propaganda of hatred against other nations was quite
contrary to the propaganda line as set out by Dr. Goebbels, for he
hoped, and to the end he clung to this hope like a _fata morgana_, that
one day he could change from the policy of “against England” and
“against America” to the policy of “with England” and “with America.”
And if one wants to do that one cannot foster hatred against a nation.
He wanted to be in line with the nations, not against them.
DR. FRITZ: Against whom then was this propaganda in the press and on the
radio directed?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Primarily, against systems; it was Dr. Goebbels who
established the concept “plutocracy” in the sense in which the whole
world knows it today, later the concept “Bolshevism” was added from the
other side. Sometimes his propaganda was directed against some of the
men in power; but he could not get the full co-operation of the German
press on that point. That annoyed him; and in a conference he once said,
“Gentlemen, if I could put 10 Jews in your place, I could get it done.”
But later he stopped these attacks on personalities such as Churchill;
he was afraid that these men would become too popular as a result of his
counterpropaganda. Apart from that he did not hate Churchill personally
at all, secretly he actually admired him; just as, for example,
throughout the war he had a picture of the Duke of Windsor on his desk.
Therefore the propaganda of hatred was directed temporarily against
individual men but always against systems.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, before answering the next question, will you check
your memory very carefully, and particularly remember your oath. Was it
the aim of this propaganda for which Fritzsche received orders and which
he carried out, to arouse unrestrained passions tantamount to incitement
to murder and violence, or what was its purpose?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: No. The minister could not use passions at all in his
propaganda, for passions flare up and die down again. What the minister
did need was a steady and constant line, steadfastness even in hard
times. Stirring up of passions, inciting to hatred, or even murder would
not have appealed to the German people nor could Dr. Goebbels use
anything like that.
DR. FRITZ: Did German propaganda abroad, especially in Russia, come
under the direction of the Propaganda Ministry at all?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: I must differentiate here. I do not know whether I
should go into the well-known differences between Dr. Goebbels and
Ribbentrop. At the beginning of the war the Foreign Office had demanded
charge of all foreign propaganda, namely, propaganda in foreign
countries, radio propaganda broadcasts to foreign countries, and,
propaganda directed towards foreigners living in Germany. Very
disagreeable controversies resulted; the problem was put to the Führer
himself, but finally both sides interpreted his decision in their own
favor.
DR. FRITZ: Witness, would you, perhaps, be a little more brief?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Very well, I can leave that. The differences between
the two men are well known. However, in regard to Russia, I must add
that there both press and propaganda came under the jurisdiction of Herr
Rosenberg up to about March of 1944. And in this sphere as well, Dr.
Goebbels...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What has this Russian
propaganda got to do with the defendant?
DR. FRITZ: No; the German propaganda in Russian territory—that is what
I asked him about. He is only going to say one sentence about it; in
fact, he has already said it.
VON SCHIRMEISTER: Up to 1944, Rosenberg—to the great concern of Dr.
Goebbels who believed that the Russian campaign could have been won in
the field of propaganda.
DR. FRITZ: I have one more question to put to you.
Yesterday, when Herr Fritzsche was being cross-examined, the Prosecution
submitted several interrogation records; among them, for example, that
of Field Marshal Schörner, in which the testimony is unanimous in saying
that Fritzsche was the permanent deputy of Goebbels as Propaganda
Minister. Is that correct?
VON SCHIRMEISTER: That is bare nonsense. I cannot imagine how a
statement like that came to be made. There is not a word of truth in it.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you. Mr. President, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other defendants’ counsel want to ask any
questions of the witness?
[_There was no response._]
Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, the Prosecution do not intend to question
this witness; but this does not mean that we accept without objection
the testimony which he has given here.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may retire.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should like to point out and request the
Tribunal to take judicial notice also of the documents which are
contained in both my document books but which I did not quote. In my
Document Book Number 2 there is another affidavit deposed by Dr.
Scharping, a document which I offer to the Tribunal as Document Number
Fritzsche-3, Pages 16 to 19. This affidavit deals with the attitude of
the Defendant Fritzsche on measures which Hitler had planned after the
large-scale air attacks on the city of Dresden. May I ask the Tribunal
to take judicial notice of the entire contents of this affidavit, on
Page 16 and the following pages, Document Book Number 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, the Tribunal observe that in Exhibit 3, which
you have just presented to us, there is a statement by the person making
the affidavit that after the bombing of German cities in the fall of
1944, “Dr. Goebbels stated that there was no longer any objection to
handing over crew members of crashed airplanes to the wrath of the
people.”
The Tribunal would like to have the Defendant Fritzsche back in the
witness box and to question him about that.
Did you ask any questions of the Defendant Fritzsche in reference to
this matter in your examination of him?
DR. FRITZ: No, Mr. President, I expected—I wanted to say at the
conclusion of my case that I had expected a statement on this subject
from the representative of the protecting power, the Swiss Ambassador in
Berlin. This statement has, however, not yet reached me. I wanted to ask
permission to submit it later if it arrives in time.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that another interrogatory or affidavit that you mean?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, it is a statement which deals with this subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ: And if I may be permitted to add this, Mr. President, I also
expect a statement from a British radio commentator, Clifton Delmar.
That statement has not yet arrived. May I perhaps submit that?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, you may. But what the Tribunal is concerned
with at the moment is that they think it material that they should
know...
DR. FRITZ: Yes, I quite understand, Mr. President.
[_The Defendant Fritzsche resumed the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: You are still under oath. You may sit down.
You have read this affidavit?
FRITZSCHE: But I no longer remember it in detail.
THE PRESIDENT: We did not hear the answer to that.
FRITZSCHE: I no longer recall in detail this affidavit which my counsel
has just submitted to the Tribunal. I know that it exists, however.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that the Tribunal wished you to be asked
about was this:
“Beginning in the fall of 1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about
this frequently during his so-called conferences of
ministers...”
I’ll begin before that:
“The increasing effect of English and American air bombardments
on German cities caused Hitler and his more intimate advisers to
seek drastic measures of reprisal. Beginning in the fall of
1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about this frequently during his
so-called conferences of ministers, to which numerous officials
and technicians of his ministry were convened and which, as a
rule, I also attended.”
That is Franz Scharping?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.