THE WITNESS: Then according to my recollection in the fall of 1944 -- it may have been somewhat earlier, that is, in the summer of 1944 -- a series of reports were transmitted, particularly abroad. These reports were a pure invention on the part of Dr. Goebbels, who dictated them personally and made them available to the editors of foreign broadcast stations. These reports dealt with cases which allegedly had occurred in a German village where an Allied flier who allegedly had shot people walking to church or just promenading on a Sunday and who had been shot down and was subsequently lynched by the population. Dr. Goebbels, and that I could observe, by circular letters asked the Reich Propaganda Offices throughout the Reich to collect material of that kind, but did not receive reports on a single case. It is indeed quite improbable that a flier who has just made an attack on civilians would now drop just within the area of these civilians by being shot down. These reports were invented by Dr. Goebbels and circulated abroad in foreign countries in order to stress that enemy fliers should not believe that they could perform attacks which are beyond the customs of war without being punished for it and just being considered prisoners of war afterwards. These reports were not, however, circulated in Germany and not made available to the German public, because the German public could recognize without difficulty that these reports were false simply by the names of the places, the dates, and so on. In addition to that program I know another one, that is to say a third one on the part of Dr. Goebbels. That was after the air attack on Dresden in the beginning of 1945 when he requested me to make propagandists preparations for the utilization of the fact that as a reprisal for the airraid on Dresden 40,000 Allied fliers were to be shot in Dresden. That task, as I have stated before the International Military Tribunal, did not carry out, but I informed a foreign minister of those facts and took measures which later led to it that the planned action was not carried out.
Q.- Will you please tell the Tribunal when that occurred, the matter which you just discussed, after the airraids on Dresden?
A.- I can no longer tell the date. I know the day of the week. I remember the day of the week. If I remember correctly, it must have been a Thursday, the Thursday after the day or the Thursday of the week during which the airraid took place on Tuesday.
Q.- That was in 1944 or 1945?
A.- In 1945.
Q.- If I understood you correctly, Witness, then until that time you did not receive any instruction from Dr. Goebbels to request the German population or any other agency to do anything against Allied fliers?
A.- I have not received any request of that kind from Dr. Goebbels until the time I mentioned.
Q.- Until that time did the German press of the German radio at any time make a similar incitement, maybe outside of Goebbel's instructions?
A.- Not as far as I know. I considered it quite impossible, because otherwise I would have had to know about a request of that kind.
Q. You mentioned material, before, that Goebbels wanted collected all throughout the Reich through his propaganda agencies. According to my information , it is alleged that in the Propaganda Ministry, a film was shown which was captured from a British plane and which was shown within the Propaganda Ministry. Did you attend that showing, and was that case used for propaganda purposes?
A. The matter happened slightly different than how you described it. It was not the showing of the film, it was the following: One day a liason officer who worked for Dr. Goebbels with the Luftwaffe, a certain Lieutenant Boenninghaus, came with a film which had been captured from an Allied plane that was shot down. It was, one of these films which are taken automatically at the same time while firing a rapid fire cannon on board of an airplane and which would show the target during the attack. On that film, which was not shown but only demonstrated as a negative, one could see that the flier who had been shot down , with his last shots aimed at a group of three peasant women who moved about in a field. One saw on the subsequent pictures the various positions in which the three women in extreme terror fled in various directions. One threw her shirts over her head. The other one threw herself on the ground, and the third kept running.
That film, as far as I remember, Dr. Goebbels intended to show to the public. That would have been a tremendous incitement of hatred and passion, which during the days of war were very strong already. Only on the basis of a special information, this intention was changed and the film was not shown publicly. That information came also from Lieutenant Boenninghaus and it was the following. Lieutenant Boenninghaus stated that among Allied fliers , it was not considered fair to attack individual civilians, and that one knew that fliers of whom such attacks have become known, when they returned to their air base would be punished by their comrades by disrespect, by exclusion from the officers' club, by excluding them from parties and similar things.
Lieutenant Boenninghaus stated at that time what really counted was to underline the good and fair soldierly spirit of the Allied fliers in their combating such abuses of the weapons which were used by the individual soldier. Therefore, even in the case of polemics in the press, a clear distinction was made between Allied fliers who had just dropped bombs or who had just participated in larger air raids and other Allied fliers, who, if I may use that expression, performed a private manhunt of their own.
Q. At any rate, that material was never shown to the German public nor published by the foreign radio or foreign press?
A. To my knowledge, that film was not utilized nor published.
Q. Mr. Fritsche, you mentioned, concerning the article by Goebbels from May '44, that is Exhibit 417, that you had first read it in the IMT Judgment. We do not want to discuss the contents. Maybe you remember the case. I have shown it to you in the recess. Goebbels brings a number of quotations from primarily British papers. On the basis of your knowledge of these matters, could you say whether Goebbels invented those quotations?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer.
THE WITNESS: I could not say that these quotations specifically which you mentioned there were taken from that or the other source. I could only say what the general procedure was concerning quotations which Dr. Goebbels used. All those quotations were prepared by an institution which looked like archives. That was the so-called Referat, German speeding service --Schnelldienst---which I had established once shortly before the outbreak of the war. I could observe quite frequently that Dr. Goebbels manipulated with these quotations by inserting a very strong tendency, but I could never observe that he actually falsified a quotation. In order to make it a little more clear, he selected the strongest portions of a sentence and left milder portions out. If there was a choice in translating a word, he chose the strongest term possible, but I have never observed that he actually falsified a quotation.
Therefore, I assume that also as for the quotations used in that article, the same applies which I otherwise observed.
Q. Exhibit 440, which I mentioned already, NG-1306, Document Book I Supplement, is an affidavit by an official with the prosecution in Stuttgart. That official stated the following, I quote: "I remember a decree dealing with the handling of procedure against those people who killed parachuted enemy fliers." With that he points to a decree by the Minister of Justice. He continues, and I continue to quote: "It came, that is the decree, at any rate after the proclamation by Dr. Goebbels concerning the killing of enemy fliers, which at that time appeared in the press. According to my recollection, that decree was issued after the destruction of our office building in Stuttgart, that is to say, after the 12th December 1944". I believe even that it was in January 1945, and I continue to quote: "Either that decree explicitly referred to the proclamation in question by Dr. Goebbels in the press, or which is also possible, I may have immediately remembered that proclamation, when reading the decree."
I should like to ask you, Mr. Fritsche, what you have to say concerning that statement that a decree is brought in a certain connection with a proclamation by Goebbels. I do not know what the witness means. If I understood you correctly, a proclamation by Goebbels in the press did not become known to you except for the one that we have just discussed.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, your Honor, for the reason that this witness has testified that Goebbels issued this press account and the witness in the affidavit said he read the article in the paper. I can see nothing in the question that indicates that this witness knows anything else about any to her decree that was referred to than the account that was in the newspaper. The question also asked him whether he knows whether the witness was referring to this decree or some other, and of course this witness doesn't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you more briefly state the specific question which you wish the witness to answer without your own explanations and the Tribunal will then rule on it.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. You have already said that apart from the newspaper article, by Goebbels, you did not know of anything else; particularly, you did not know about a proclamation issued by Goebbels. Did I understand you correctly?
A. You understood me quite correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: That proclamation appears in the evidence to be marked "Top Secret," does it not?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, I have just quoted the affidavit by Beljorek. Beljorek says that he had received a secret decree from the Ministry of Justice, and when he received that decree he stated here that he had the opinion that there was a connection between that decree and a proclamation by Goebbels. My question to the witness is now whether apart from the newspaper article in the Voelkische Beobachter, he knows of any proclamation by Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer if he knows of any proclamation by Geobbels.
THE WITNESS: I do not know any proclamation by Dr. Goebbels to the public in the sense which you have just described.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Than I have no further question on this matter. Now we come to a new subject about which I want to put some questions to you. Do you remember an order by Himmler which is supposed to have been published in the middle of January '45 concerning evacuations in the Eastern German territory, particularly in the Oder territory? It is asserted that Himmler made a public statement that without his approval nobody could go back to the west from the Oder area --- that no official agency could be evacuated -- and that also the civilian population had to stay put.
A I know of such orders which prohibited at the moment of danger. I have heard many complaints from various areas, not only in the Order area, against such orders, because it occurred frequently -- and it occurred everywhere in the end -- that first it was prohibited to flee and then, when it was too late, it was recommended to do so.
Q Do you remember specifically a decree by Himmler of January, 1945, concerning the Oder area?
A I know a decree of that time was issued; I could not any longer tell whether it was issued by Himmler; but, since I was not far from the Oder area, I remember that that point was promulgated very strongly in the Oder area.
Q A further question. In March 1939 you were chief of the German Press Department; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In March of 1939 the so-called protectorate was established. I ask you: did at that time the press and radio, that is to say the Ministry of Propaganda, consider the establishment of the protectorate a bilateral treaty concluded by Dr. Hacha the President of Czechoslovakian State and Hitler; and, did it inform the public that that was a bilateral treaty?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I object to that part of the question as least which asked as to what the German Reich considered the establishment to be. If this witness wants to testify as to what was actually sent out in the way of propaganda, I shall not object. I object to the question in its form.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained, subject to the limitation which the Prosecution has suggested.
Q Mr. Fritsche, my question , therefore, is how was this treaty presented to the German public.
A In the official publications that treaty was considered a free covenant concluded between two interested partners. From abroad rumors and reports were received which were -concerned with the fact that President Hacha was limited in the free expression of his will, and that story was illustrated by stating that President Hacha was given a drug during the conference with Hitler. I took advantage of an opportunity, which occurred by coincidence, to ask the personal physician of Hitler at that time whether he had given that drug to President Hacha. He said that it was a special drug against a heart disease and President Hacha was so happy about it that later he has requested to receive more of it.
Q Was the German public informed about these details?
A No, the report about that alleged narcotic drug was denied.
Q I have a final question, now, in my capacity as counsel for the defendant Klemm; did you know Klemm?
A I knew Klemm from the time when he studied at Koenig Albert Gymnasium several classes below me, at Beipzig.
Q Did you have any contact with Klemm, when in 1944, he became under secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Yes. I called on him concerning various cases where broadcast listeners, who were not personally known to me, approached me with various requests. At that time I called on the under-secretary in the Ministry of Justice over the telephone, I did not know that I happened to know him personally, and , in the course of the conversation, we found out that we had known each other before.
Q In what matters did you call on Klemm?
A In various matters. I remember one case; it was a case of an actor who was accused of undermining military strenghth; and his mother, who was quite unknown to me. had written to me. In such cases I never used to try to straighten out something which I could not really straighten out, but all I did was to bring such cases to the attention of the competent agencies in a somewhat sympathetic sense.
I did that in this case, and as I heard later during the trial before the IMT, that actor was only sentenced to a very mild sentence because upon close investigation of the case that suspicion of undermining the military strength was dropped. In another case it was a matter of communist activity, and, if I remember correctly, the sister of the defendant had written to me. In that case a death sentence was pronounced; and then because the sister of the defendant, whom I did not know, personally came to see me several times, I then made an attempt to speak to Minister Thierack. In that I succeeded with the help of Klemm. A very carefully prepared clemency plea was filed, but it was not successful. Such cases, according to my recollection, occurred frequently, but I think these two examples should be sufficient.
Q Did you gain the impression that Klomm, in the cases for which you intervened, was willing to help, that is, to bring about a decision of clemency?
A I had the impression that he was certainly willing to help.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the tribunal, I have no further questions to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schilf, on numerous occasions you have used the word "pardon"; and I think perhaps the record should show that in your use of that word you have included either a complete pardon or a commutation of sentence, is that not correct?
DR. SCHILF: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In our English practice, "pardon" means a complete forgiveness of the entire crime, and I think the record should show the use in which you have employed that word in the past. Am I correct?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Mr. President, May I state briefly whenever I personally -- and I believe also if my colleagues -- speak of a pardon, Gnadenerweis, they always me a the commutation of the sentence no complete pardon.
THE PRESIDENT? Thank you very much. Is there other direct examination of this witness?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I think Dr. Schilf stated that he was interrogating on behalf of all defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Mr. Fritsche, do you think you can give fair estimate to the Tribunal of the number of times that you called the defendant Klemm for the purpose of asking him to intercede on behalf of people who had received death sentences?
AAs to sentences, I remember only one ---- the one I mentioned. In two other cases where I tried to intervene in death sentences, I did not turn to Klemm.
Q On these occasions did you talk to the defendant Klemm over the telephone; or, did you go to see him personally; did you remember?
A Only over the telephone. After the time when we studied together, I first saw Klemm again here in Nuernberg.
Q So that you either called or wrote him.
A If I remember correctly -- as far as I can remember, I only called him over the telephone.
Q On these occasions did he ever say to you that he couldn't do anything about this matter because it was a clear base? Did ever use the word "clear" to you? Just answer that please.
A I don't remember having heard the expression "clear case" -Glatter Fall, by Klemm. It is possible that he used that expression; I would have understood it, but I do not remember it. All I know is that in the case of the death sentence, and I have to go a little more into detail, where I received two dozen visits from the relatives of the person sentenced to death -- personal visits which lasted several hours because these people just stayed in my office and asked to be helped.
I can only emphasize that Klemm, in this case, expressed that the chances were very poor for the defendant, and that, nevertheless, he advised me as to how that clemency plea which was prepared by somebody else, could be submitted with some, though small chance of success.
Q So, that out of old friendship you called on him for help; and as an old friend, did he ever ask you to give him some private information as to the conduct of the war or to the progress of the war; he knew that you would know that?
A These are two questions. May I answer both of them?
Q Yes.
A The first one is whether as an old friend, he has done me a favor - I emphasized already that only in the course of the telephone conversations, and I do not even think it was the first telephone call, I was informed by him that we knew each other from our youth. The second question, whether in exchange he requested any information from me, that, I can not remember. At that time many people asked me for news. It is possible that Klemm also asked me, but that was not in connection with the assistance which Klemm granted my clients, if I may call them clients.
Q Well, do you not know the adage in Germany, that practice -- "If I scratch your back, you scratch mine", or do you not know that?
A Yes, that expression exists, but we speak of a crow in that case.
Q Now, do you know that the Poles who were in Germany wore a diamond insignia on their arms with the letter "P" on the inside of it?
AAn insignia with the letter "P", yes, that I knew.
Q Would that connote to you that a man was a free workers or a free citizen in Germany with that racial designation?
A I know that the designation of a Pole was frequently put under discussion at that time, and that many voices were heard who did not want to see such a discrimination; but it did not signify a defamation; in fact, it was rescinded later on.
Q Well, it did not signify that the man was free to go where he pleased without disclosing that he was a Pole, did it? Just answer that, yes or no, please?
A Now, you talked about what people in Germany generally knew. Let me ask you, what, in your opinion, a German judge who sentenced a Catholic priest for holding a funeral service over a Pole, thought and do you think that he thought the Pole was a free man, working pleasantly in Germany?
A I do not -
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I object to this question. The matter was not subject to direct examination.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, please, this witness testified that no one in Germany would know that there were slave laborers. I am entitled to question him as to what he thought, whether he would assume under the circumstances that these defendants had other information; whether that would change his point of view. That is the purpose of my question.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the Defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, I object to the question because the case was mir-represented.
THE PRESIDENT: Frankly, I confess, Mr. LaFollette, I did not quite understand your question. I was listening to it. Will you state it again please.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: All right.
Q Would you say that a German judge who sentenced a priest for holding a public funeral service for a Pole was of the opinion that that Pole was in Germany as a free and equal citizen?
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
Q Would you say that an official of the German Ministry of Justice who had a case presented to him in which a German was sentenced for having contacts with a Pole in a village would or would not know that the Pole was a free man or not a free man in Germany?
DR. SCHIIF: May it please the Tribunal, I object because this is just a question based on an assumption.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it calls for a conclusion which the Tribunal can make for itself. The objection is sustained.
Q Mr. Fritsche, may be you can tell me was it or was it not a part of the policy of the German Propaganda Ministry to teach the philosophy that racially and by blood, the German people were a superior race?
DR. SCHILF: One moment, please; here again I must object; that was not subject of the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: You may answer.
A The answer is very brief, no; and, I can qualify that answer.
Q I would be interested if you would.
A It was not the task of the Propaganda Ministry to expound the theory of the master race which now plays such an important role. It is impossible that a number of Party propaganda agencies had that task. The propaganda machine of the State, however, did not have that mission; with primitive means of that kind, it did not work.
Q I ask you whether or not you considered it any part of the program and philosophy and belief of the Nationalist Socialist Party to extoll the superiority of the German people as a race?
A That was not an essential feature of the National Socialist fundamental ideology, but an essential feature of the basic program was to determine the differences of races which did not yet take into account the question of superiority or inferiority; and as a result therefrom, the demand to protect these racial characteristics, and, of course, it was clear that one developed the pride for these racial characteristics in the same manner as one would develop the pride for one's nation.
Q Now, you made yourself radio speeches in which you denounced the Jews and extolled the superiority of the German over the Jew, did you not; you, yourself?
A I do not believe I ever made such a statement.
Q You mean that you never made a speech on the radio that was anti-semitic; do you want to tell this Tribunal that now?
A No, no, that I do not want to say.
Q Then, I want to ask you during the time that the development of the superiority of certain characteristics of the German was being developed as a part of National Socialist thinking, did Josef Alstoetter ever come to you and object to that propaganda?
A Who is Altstoetter?
Q That is your answer. I asked you did he come to you. If you do not know him, of course, he did not come.
A No, I can not remember.
Q Did Wilhelm von Ammon ever come to you and ever objected to that propaganda?
A I do not know von Ammon.
Q Did Barnickel ever come to you and object?
A I do not know Barnickel.
Q Did Hermann Cuhorst ever come to you and object?
DR. BRIEGER: I object to that question; the matter was not the subject of the direct examination.
JUDGE BRAND: The objection is overruled, it is within the realm of cross-examination.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: You may answer.
Q: Did Hermann Cuhorst ever come to you and object?
A: No.
Q: Did Karl Engert ever come to you and object?
A: No.
Q: Did Guenter Joel ever come to you and object?
A: No.
Q: Did your old school-mate Herbert Klemm ever come to you and object?
A: No.
Q: Did Ernst Lautz ever come to you and object?
A: No; they probably had no cause to do so.
Q: Did Guenter Nebelung ever come to you and object?
A: No, he probably did not have any cause for that either.
Q: Did Rudolf Oeschey ever come to you and object?
A: Neither.
Q: Did Hans Petersen?
A: No, he did not, either.
Q: Oswald Rothaug of Nurnberg.
A: No.
Q: Kurt Rothenberger?
A: No.
Q: Franz Schlegelberger?
A: No.
Q: You spoke of press conferences, little press conferences after big press conferences, in which you said that unmonitored foreign information was made available. Did the information from foreign countries with reference to the progress of the war continue to be made available at these second press conferences to any member of an official Ministry of Germany who cared to come?
A: These information services from abroad were never mentioned in the subsequent conference. That was an oral conference where written material was hardly ever distributed but many of the participants of that subsequent conference, "Nachkonferenz" - that is to say, all journalists who took part in it, received that written material continuously.
Q: That was uncensored material?
A: Absolutely uncensored.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q: May I ask you... Was there any rule which prohibited members of the Ministry of Justice from attending those subsequent conferences, as far as you know?
A: It was not the question of prohibiting them to attend, but the question of invitation, and the representative of the Ministry of Justice was only invited when he announced that he had to tell us something.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q: May I ask one further question. The fact that these conferences at which uncensored information was available to members of the German press was not a secret was it, Mr. Fritzsche?
A: That was a strict secret. That raw material could not be published without special permission. Those who received it had to keep it in a safe place and it was not to be used as a basis for any publication. It had been distributed for the own information of these journalists.
Q: Excuse me, I don't think I made myself clear. Was the fact that these conferences were held, a secret; not the material - but just the fact that they were held - was that a secret?
A: The fact that these conferences took place was not a secret, but I had tried time and again to prevent that any notes be taken during these conferences.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q: I should like to ask you a very few questions, and as a preliminary let me explain that I am not inquiring concerning whether the workers were brought into the Reich involuntarily or voluntarily. Let us assume that they came voluntarily. There has been a little evidence in the case with reference to the function of the Labor Office in directing or controlling these foreign laborers, even assuming that they were voluntary. To what extent did the Labor Office control the place of work, the length of service and so on?
A: That I could not judge. I know that many agencies took care of the details of labor, first the German Labor Front, DAF, which was constituted similar to a union and was supposed to take care of the interests of the laborers, also of the foreign workers; for instance, broadcasts were requested from me, by the Labor Front for the foreign workers. Then, undoubtedly, the Party, that is to say, the Kreisleiter, was interested in labor conditions, especially in rural areas. Certainly, also the Labor Office of the State, which still existed at that time, as far as I know.
Q: The extent of the control over the foreign workers by the Labor Office, you do not feel fully informed upon?
A: No, no; that I could not tell.
Q: You spoke in your testimony of the element of freedom with which the foreign workers, for instance from France, were able to go about the country.
Did you mean by that to say that if a worker voluntarily came to the Reich and was employed there that he was free to quit his job and go back to his own country?
A: That I do not believe, but what I meant to say was that he was not imprisoned but he could walk in the street freely; and in Berlin one saw at times more foreigners than Germans.
Q: Then the fact that one voluntarily came to the the Reich as a laborer, if he did come voluntarily, did not imply that he could voluntarily quit his work and leave? The right to voluntarily enter did not include the right to voluntarily leave the country, did it?
A: Only after he served the contract which he had made.
Q: Was the contract made by his government?
A: No. There were two possibilities. I met some Dutch and Belgian laborers who had made contracts on their own. I met French workers who had made a contract with their own government to work in Germany for that and that time.
Q: You referred to agreements between France and the German Reich with reference to the employment of labor.
A: Yes.
Q: What government of France was the agreement made with?
A: That government of France which at that time was recognized as the only one by Germany the government of Petain.
Q: Then during the period of the worker's contract?