THE PRESIDENT: Under trusteeship?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then it was under Pohl's control as trustee?
THE WITNESS: No. No. No. As far as I know from the files, Herr Moeckl together with Herr Klein were interested in what was known as the "Biliner Brunnen" well which was part of that property. Whether it was to be leased or not, I don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, who was the trustee -- and this was in 1940. Who was the general trustee for property of this kind?
THE WITNESS: The trustee appointed was a high financial civil servant. His name was Haniel or something like that. That's in the files.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh.
THE WITNESS: I really don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this person was Prince Max Lobkowitz. He was a Czech land owner and at one time was a member of the Diplomatic Service in London, wasn't he?
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, Herr Klein should be able to answer that question. I really know nothing about it.
If the Tribunal please, in an other matter I went to see Dr. Richter. I wanted to find out as an auditor -- and I wanted an order by Dr. Richter to evaluate this property. On that occasion Dr. Richter gave me the order to place with Herr Pohl, and this was to the effect that I was to tell Pohl that a confiscation of property to the advantage of the SS was not possible at all. That becomes clear also from another letter which had just been submitted. That was the only thing I did in this whole matter. I simply told Pohl that it was not possible to seize this property on behalf of the SS.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Otherwise you had nothing to do with the Lobkowitz affair?
A No.
Q A final question. The witness, Karoli, said on the witness that professional circles had complained about you because you had behaved incorrectly as an auditor. Can you tell the Court in how far according to your knowledge this statement of Karoli's is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not trying Hohberg for being an incorrect auditor. Don't waste any time on it. You have five minutes.
DR. HEIH: Mr. President, the witness, Karoli, has stated that Dr. Hohberg did not join the Wehrmacht voluntarily but that he went because he was behaving incorrectly as an auditor within the DWB, had to give up his position there for the reason because he had become so powerful there which was no longer compatible with his duties as an auditor. That statement on the part of Dr. Karoli means that the defendant Hohberg, as an auditor of the DWB was not working as an auditor but beyond that at least had some influence on the business management of the DWB, and this statement of Karoli's which had not been produced by the Prosecution before represents a very dangerous incrimination of the defendant. I should, therefore, be grateful to admit that last question.
MR. ROBBINS: I should like to remind Defense Counsel that we didn't bring Dr. Karoli here but Defense Counsel brought him here. He was not a witness for the Prosecution.
DR. HEIM: Mr. President, after all, a witness of the Defense -we have seen this happen before -- can suddenly become a Prosecution witness for another defendant. It is, therefore, immaterial, in my opinion, whether the Prosecution or the Defense have called this witness to the stand.
MR. ROBBINS: I was just answering his accusation that we brought up something else new at the last minute.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go ahead. Of course, we remember very well what he said before as to his reason for leaving the Wehrmacht. He said it once. I mean going into the Wehrmacht.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Witness, a final question. The witness Karoli has said on the witness stand that you were not only an auditor of the DWB at the end but there your economic power had been so enormous that professional circles complained about you and you had to discontinue your activity as an auditor.
THE PRESIDENT: Now don't you remember that he told us at great length what his duties were and that he was nothing but an auditor. He said that over and over again. Does he want to say it once more? If this will be the last time go ahead.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Your power was supposed to have been so incredible that professional circles complained about you and insisted on your being discontinued. Do you know anything about this complaint from professional circles?
THE PRESIDENT: That was not true, was it, Dr. Hohberg?
THE WITNESS: May I give you my answer, Mr. President? It won't take me a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this was not a complaint from professional circles. I was in intimate contact with the Main Department for Auditors and the Institute for Auditors, and they always praised me. I may say who attacked me from the professional circles was a man, who was a member of the Circle of Friends of the Reichsfuehrer-SS, the so-called "Keppler Kreis", a man called Kranefuss. Kranefuss caused two people of the German trusteeship agency in the East to visit Pohl, one of whom was Karoli's brother, so that he would be in part replaced as an SS auditor. That was the whole complaint made by professional circles. Nobody else took part in it.
DR. HEIM: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: There was nothing to the complaint; I mean it was without foundation?
THE WITNESS: Yes, without foundation. It was a purely political maneuver.
THE PRESIDENT: That's all, Doctor?
DR. HEIM: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritsch:
DR. FRITSCH: I have a request to make, if the Tribunal please. As Dr. Karoli has been mentioned just now, there is in some documents reference made to my client, Baier, which makes me fear that he might be incriminated by these references. I can clear up these things by an affidavit of witness. Dr. Karoli, or else I could ask him a few questions here for about ten minutes.
My request to this Tribunal is to the effect to tell me which I should do. It seems to me to be more expedient to ask Karoli a few questions for ten minutes because the translations of affidavits are a difficult proposition.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is there something serious that you want him to deny?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, yes, Mr. President. It seems to me to be serious.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not just that he used the wrong letterhead or something like that?
DR. FRITSCH: No. No.
THE PRESIDENT: When do you want to do it?
DR. FRITSCH: I could ask him tomorrow morning at any time. He is here in prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Nine-thirty.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a date. We will adjourn until that time.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 3 September 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, on sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, 3 September 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. FRITSCH: Dr. Fritsch for defendant Baier.
If the Tribunal please, the repeated interrogation of witness Karoli will be very brief. I am mainly interested in testimonies as to the statements contained in Document Book II for Hohberg.
HERMANN KAROLI - Recalled DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:Q.- Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath.
Witness, was there any difference between the Chief of Staff W and Chief W? I would like to draw your attention to the fact I am not interested in the designation as such but the work which it entails.
A.- Their power, their authority, no, no such division existed. In my opinion the Chief W was as much in charge as the chief of the agencies of Staff W, as the Chief of Staff W was before. This abbreviation of the designation was done for purely practical reasons in order to have an abbreviation. Any of his authority was not entailed in this.
Q.- Witness, I would like to put to you from the Appendix I, in Document Book II for Hans Hohberg, Hohberg Document 68. If the Tribunal please, I am extremely sorry but I have not got the exhibit number. I was not able to get it.
I believe it is quite simple; a witness says there, this is a man called Ansorge, and I quote, "Chief W was the deputy chief of the Amtsgruppe. In other words, under commercial law he was the Deputy Director General." What can you tell us about that?
A.- This explanation is entirely incorrect. Moreover, it is full of contradictions. First of all -
THE PRESIDENT: We are convinced, Dr. Fritsch, that Chief W and Chief of Staff W mean the same thing. We are not confused at all about that.
DR. FRITSCH: In that case, Mr. President, may I put just one more question?
Q. (By Dr. Fritsch) - Therefore, we need not talk about those questions any more, witness. Perhaps you can answer me one question. We have heard here about the Deputy Director General under commercial law. Do you remember that quotation?
A.- Yes, I do, but I would prefer, I must admit, to see the document.
Q.- Is what Ansorge says correct, namely that Baier under commercial law was appointed Deputy Director General?
A.- No, this is entirely incorrect. Baier in the course of March, 1945, became the procurist of DWB. At that time he was entirely in charge of the duties of a procurist. In connection, and only in connection with a business manager, he could represent DWB and sign on behalf of it. At that time, however, DWB, for all practical purposes, was no longer in business, which was probably the reason why the two procurists who had been with them for so long, Dr. Wenner and Dr. Volk were transferred to the front. Baier merely filled the gap. It was a solution of an embarrassment simply. He did not do actual work any more because DWB had lost all its contact with its subsidiary companies through the military situation, bad communications, etc.
Q.- Witness, let me go back to my initial question, - I am not interested in designations and titles.
Did Baier occupy the position of a Deputy Director General and work as such? That is the essential point.
A.- No, he did not, nor did he do the work connected with it. I might add that apart from the somewhat deficient authorities under commercial law and also in consequence of his professional and other knowledge and experience, Baier would not have been in a position to fill a position of that sort.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When you spoke of Deputy Director General, did you mean of DWB?
DR. FRITSCH: This is what the affidavit which I have quoted has not made quite clear. All it says there is deputizing for the Chief of the Amtsgruppe, that is to say, of Pohl, as Chief of Office Group W, and under commercial law reference is made to the position of a Deputy Director General. Whether he means the entire WVHA in this case as far as Office Group W is concerned, of course, or only DWB does not become clear from this. In my opinion Baier was neither the one nor the other, but as this assertion has been made I had to clear it up.
THE PRESIDENT: There was no such thing as Director General of the WVHA?
DR. FRITSCH: No, that did not exist.
THE PRESIDENT: So that he must have meant Director General, Deputy Director General of DWB?
DR. FRITSCH: I assume so. Yes, quite possibly. I have no further questions to this witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:Q.- Witness, I think this already probably appears in the record, but to make sure, I would like to ask you to tell the Tribunal what Ansorge's position in DWB and Amtsgruppe W was?
A.- Ansorge was a civilian employee of DWB and had the authority to act on behalf of DWB. As far as I know in the old days, he was employed in the auditing department at Hohberg's time, and then under Hohberg he was a plenipotentiary of the DWB, all the civilian employees of DWB, from an organizational point of view, as far as the civil service was concerned, belonged to Staff W, and as such he was a member of Staff W.
Q.- You have described the position that he held. Would you not say that he was in a position to know the functions and the duties of the Chief of Staff W? I am just asking you, he should know the duties, should he not?
A.- He should, yes.
Q.- That is all I wanted to know. That is all I wanted to know.
A.- But I should add something to make it quite clear if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Finish your answer. Go ahead.
A.- Ansorge, in February, or at least early in 1945, was called up to the Home Guard the Volkssturm. When Baier became the procurist, he, as far as I know, was no longer with Staff W. Therefore from his own knowledge and observations he would not be in a position to say that Baier was the business manager or Director General at that time because he was no longer there.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
(Witness excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Lieutenant. Are you ready for Fritsche? Fritsche may be brought back.
DR. KARL HAENSEL: Karl Haensel for Georg Loerner. May I call Hans Fritsche to the witness stand?
HANS FRITSCHE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me, please?
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)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:Q.- Will you please give the Court your name, place of birth, and anything about your personal history?
A.- My name is Hans Fritsche. I was born on 21 April 1900, at Bochum.
Q.- You were a defendant in the IMT trial, were you?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Will you please tell the Court what your sentence was?
A.- I was acquitted.
Q.- All counts?
A.- On all counts of which I had been indicted.
Q.- Will you give us details about your profession? You were the Editor in Chief and in charge of the Department for German Press and Wireless. Will you please tell us, very briefly, of course, how your career and position were in this respect?
A.- Until 1932, I was in charge of a foreign press agency. From 1932 until 1938 I was Editor in Chief of the German Radio News Service which one year after my joining it was made part of the Propaganda Ministry. In 1938, in December, until the spring of 1942, I was in charge of the Department German Press in the Press Department of the Reich Government which was under the Propaganda Ministry. After December, 1942, until the end of the war I was in charge of the Department Wireless and Radio of the Propaganda Ministry.
Q.- If I have understood you correctly, you, throughout that period of time when the Third Reich was in existence, which originally was scheduled to last for one thousand years, you were a journalist and a propagandist.
One might assume, therefore, you are particularly expert in all propaganda matters and journalistic affairs?
A.- I could not contradict you, here.
Q.- In front of you, please look at this map, Exhibit 639. This is an illustrated magazine. Please look at it, take your time, and tell us whether you know this product? It is slightly damaged. Handle it carefully, please. Do you know this production?
A.- I do not recall having seen this magazine in the old days. What I do remember is similar publications; having seen similar publications.
Q.- Do you know who published these similar publications?
A.- These publications of this sort were usual and even popular during the more primitive phases of wartime propaganda. Not only in Germany but anywhere else as well, these things were made all over the world.
Q.- Will you tell us briefly first of all what impression this publication gives you as a expert and what you can tell us about the title publication. What is it, a magazine? Has it been published once? Was it a regular publication?
A.- First of all about the technical aspect, the magazine does not give the impression of being just one copy of a magazine. It seems to be an isolated publication. This pamphlet is not entirely in accordance with the rules and regulations for publications which were in existence then. The name of the responsible editor is missing. The publishing firm is only named, and then the name SB-Main Office is given as the editorial agency. This is most unusual because it was the rule that the name of the author and the person of the responsible man must be named.
The rule that one's sources for lustration must be quoted, in **** case this rule is fulfilled, as far as the pictures are concerned. So much for the appearance of this publication. You asked me about the effect. All I can say is that it is extremely clumsy propoganda. It has every symptom of most unfair propoganda too. On the first page, on the title page, the most primitive method is uded, typical of a certain type of efforts which wish to make things contempible. The method used is to show unshaven faces of men. That is a method which one has observed wants to make nice sympathetic faces of criminals. I always thought the method below comtempt and I, in my own shere and as far as my influence reached, always told people rot to use that primitive method. I should like to add one thing.
Q. Please do.
A. Moreover, the whole just a position of the pictures has bee exaggerated in so primitive a manner that any civilized person with any thought at all would no longer fell enlightened, but disgusted by it.
Q, You told us that this publication from the point of view of printing evern was not in accordance with the rules which asked for the editor's name to be given, You also said that its contents were not up to the level which you yourself expected from you own progogandistic efforts. Do you find this publication a typically amteurish one?
A. The term, extreme "amateurism", seems to me a bit strong in this case, but there is certainly a certain amount of amateurism there. I would agree with that.
Q. You said that you knew of similar publications. If you glance at what the publication says, you will find that essentially it deals with photographs from the Eastern Territories. Was the was these protographs are mounted, contrasted with one another, known to you from Soviet propoganda at that time?
A. The method of mounting pictures and photographs was invented, as far as I am able to judge, in Germany after 1918 and at that time it was used in internal propoganda very frequently.
At that time it was introduced, as far as I can recall by the extreme parties of the **** *** later on was also equally strongly taken over and borrowed by the extreme parties of the Right. In the war I saw quite a bit of Soviet propagana literature which also worked with the method of these mounted photographs, which were to give as frastic a contrast as possible.
Q. This publication is called "The Subman". Can you perhaps from your memory tell us something about how that term was coined? I seem to remember that when we listened to foreign broadcasts illegally at the time we were struck that the Russians had used the term, "The Soviet Man," perhaps as a matter of caricature or by distorting something in the political sphere of counter propagands, could one deduce from that the term "Subman", was a particular weapon in the Eastern propagana?
A. How that term, "Subman," was coined I am not in a position to give a statement under oath here. I did not know at what time this ugly term emerged in the political battle. It is entirely possible that it grew in the fight against other collective terminology, such as you mentioned just now. All I know is that some people who made speeches in Germany made extremely generous use, without any scruples, of the term, "Subman."
THE PRESIDENT: You might refer to Himmler when you say that.
THE WITNESS: I don't think--I do not recall that Himmler used that term particularly frequently, but I do recall a number of smaller speakers of the Party who made this term into a term of common daily use. In Hitler's speaches also this term would be used, but relatively infrequently. Speeches of Himmler, I do not know very many. I only recall two which I have road. He did not speak very often.
THE PRESIDENT: But he did use the term at least once or twice?
THE WITNESS: Himmler?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Yes, certainly.
Q. Did you in any of the positions you have mentioned **** ** prsssion wer you, in fact, in a position to gian am impression of what kind of propagana was most accessible to the German people? What did you mean be skiffful propaganda? did you mean these extremely obvious and exaggerated things, or was your propaganda carried out a higher level?
A. It was always my observation that the German people would react to this exaggerated way in an entirely negative manner. With these exagerations and distortions you would address yourself only to a very small circle of people who were fanatical anyway and who in these exaggerated thing would see a confirmation of their views. Propaganda is not to be addressed to these who already share the view, but it is to reach those who are of a different opinion and for that purpose a book of this sort is not a good idea.
Q. In the dock here you see men who all of them belonged to the WVHA or were connected with it in some function or other. Did you in your propaganda work observe the activities of that office or of one of the defendants?
A. First, I do not recall ever having seen any of these defendants in this dock, except, of course, here in Nurnberg in the prison. Any propagana work on the part of the WVHA did not come to my knowledge while I was in any position.
Q. did you receive any information from the WVHA?
A. I never received any information or news from that office.
Q. Did the office take part in the press conferences? Did it send a representative? Perhaps you can tell us briefly about press conferences.
A. The press conferences were meeting of the representatives of all Ger newspapers which once a day, and, in the war, twice a day, were held in Berlin and the representative of the Government took part and later on also representatives of the Party. I do not remember having seen a re presentative of the WVHA at any of the press conference, but a representative of the RSHA was present and also quite a few representatives ** SD, the latter, at first anomenously and unknown to us, but alter on I insisted on their turning up in uniform in order to be indentified as such.
Q. Did you in your propaganda work have anything to do in any kind of a way with the concentration camps? Did you contact them and did you hear about them? Did you contact them and did you hear about them? Perhaps you might hear in mind that we are talking about a long period of time. The first concentration camps were established in 1933 and lasted until 1945.
4. I am aware of that. Yes, of course, I had knowledge that concentration camps had been established, and, needless to say, I and any other German journalist had to deal frequently with questions about concentration camps. Your question is so large that I would have to answer you at some lenght.
Q. I think this would be well worth our while.
A. The fact that concentration camps existed was officially announced and explained in 1933, as a temporary emergency measure was taken because of the political situation on the home fromt, a situation where we had a strong party on the Right facing an extremely strong Party on the Left, whereas the middle was weak.
In 1933 there were immediately rumors about mistreatment. When I investigated these rumors I met a journalist who had been committed to a concentration camp and whom I asked about his experiences. He did not want to talk, at first, but later on he said, making me promise first that I would not use his name, that he had seen how people had been beaten and how people had their fingers squeesed in doors. That had happened in the old concentration camp of Oranienburg in Berlinerstrasse. That piece of information, without giving the journalist's name -- I believe his name was Stolzenberg -- I passed on in a letter to the Reich Minister of the interior, to the Prussian Prime Minister and to Dr. Goebbels. I thereupon, after a very brief lapse of time, was rung up on the telephone by high civil servants of the Ministry of the Interior and the Prussian Prime Minister's Office, who told me that to is matter was going to be investigated; it was not the first one. Dr. Goebbels also interested himself in this matter and asked to be given more details. Shortly afterwards, the public relations man of the State Police Chief, Diehls, the press chief's name was Luctzow, and he described to me how these conditions had become possible -- that these camps had been improvised from one day to the next and that the Guard personnel were not the old policemen or trained personnel of that type, but men of the SA, quite simply men who had time to do this work, men who were not in a position, and among those there were extremely nasty types. Luetzow described to me that a number of penal cases had been opened, including one for murder against the man in charge of one of these improvised concentration camps. He assured me that Diehls in his position would do everything to terminiate this state of affairs. He visited me again a few weeks later and told me that these things had been done away with and that the concentration camps would be confined to a minimum and that from among about 20,000 inmates only about 2,000 were still in custody. This, I think happened in the winter from 1933 to 1934. After that the problem of the concentration camps which had excited the German public mind receded be the background fora number of years.
Descriptions came in from abroad spread by refugees who had told of their experiences in concentration camps. Every single one of these descriptions which I got hold of I passed on for investigation to the Chief of the RSHA of his public relations officer or the Ministry of the Interior or later on to the RSHA.
Q. May I just interrupt you. Did you pass anything on to the WVHA in that respect, or only to the RSHA?
A. At that time only to the RSHA.
Q. Pray continue.
A. The problem of concentration camps became extremely topical early in the war when a large number of new arrests were made. Thereupon I asked the man then in charge of the Gestapo, Heydrich, to address the home and foreign journalists. I told him that his lecture would be without any point unless he had been prepared to answer questions in an open discussion put to him by foreign journalists. we had to negotiate for some considerable time about this and finally Heydrich made up his mind to do it. He gave a talk to the German and foreign journalists and he answered their questions. He described the concentration camps in factual and adequate manner. He asserted Mat the conditions there were correct and the most important point, and the point which impressed foreign journalists most, was his statement that the number of those arrested at the beginning of the war and committed to concentration camps was not any bigger than the figure of inmates of prisons prior to 1933. He also said that a large number of the concentration camp inmates were not political prisoners, but criminal ones. In the course of the war there was extremely active propaganda from foreign countries about atrocities in concentration camps. I had all these reports collected and had them investigated with such means as I had in my competence and in a very credible manner I was always assured at that time that there was not one gram of truth in all these reports.
Q. Just a moment please. Who told you this? To whom did you talk, do you remember?
A. Regierungsrat Koerber worked on this propagana; who it was in the RSHA. that he contacted I don't know. When I myself rang somebody up I talked to people like Mueller or Ohlendorf or people like that. I don't recall any other names at the moment. Of course, it was evidently desirable to obtain information over and above these things. I therefore made efforts to hear something from the circle of those who were concerned with the management of concentration camps. I wanted, as it were, uncensored news from them. I contacted the SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Radtke who worked in Himmler's office in the SS Main Office, SS Hauptamt. I asked him when I heard, for example, that he had made a trap through various concentration camps, to give me his impressions. This must have occurred early in 1942. He described to me that the accommodations in the camps were defenitely good; food was adequate; and that the state of health was entirely satisfactory. It was only in one camp, he said, and I know today that this was Mauthausen, that he saw extremely heavy work done in a quarry, in a stone quarry these were the essentials of his report. I myself endeavored not to go to a concentration camp, -- when you visit prison you never see the truth. I endeavored to contact concentration camp inmates when I saw them in the street or at some site of work an ask them questions. I did this in dozens of cases. I consistently heard without exception the complaint that their custody was unjustified; as far as food and billets were concerned, I did not hear any complaints. Mistreatment I was told nothing about, but always the fact that they had been deprived of their freedom was complained of and strong protests were made.
A new element appeared in the whole problem of concentration camps at the moment when the foreign reports about atrocities in concentration camps were no longer of a general nature but became quite suddenly most detailed and specific. Such detailed news about atrocities in concentration camps came from abroad to Germany for the first time in 1944. At that time the Russians asserted that there were gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings. Other details also were given.
Q Just a moment, it's not gas chambers but gas wagons or vans.
A It was alleged that these gas wagons had been found in Charkov. At that moment I, and probably many others, were no longer satisfied with the simple denials. We attempted rather to go to the bottom of this. In this connection I talked to a number of persons, one of whom, as I know today, was a member of the WVHA. I did not know that at the time. This was Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks. He also gave me extremedetailed information, thereby attempting to make me believe that this Russian news was invented. I saw Gluecks for a second time in connection with the question of whether or not it was true that inmates were killed in concentration camps as the enemy approached. In the most solemn manner he assured me that this was not so; and he gave me examples of evacuations of concentration camps when the enemy approached. He also told me that orders had been issued to have the inmates of the camps, especially the criminal ones, kept together and surrendered to the enemy in a close unit. Gluecks is the only member of the WVHA with whom I had any contacts.
Q Witness, you gave us the impression which you formed after your investigations and information received about concentration camps. Is that the picture which you passed on as you worked on your propaganda work?
A Of course I passed on the picture which I had formed. This was the basis of all that which I included in my descriptions about conditions in Germany.
Q While you were in Nurnberg, during you experiences in *** I.M.T. and in the later trials, you probably have changed your mind; the picture must now look somewhat different and deviate from the one you just now have given us. Looking back, you must reproach yourself for not having seen through things more clearly earlier? Or what is your explanation for the fact that you did not do so and that you could not form the Correct picture as we know today?
A The question of whether I should reproach myself because I believed these things has been on my mind for many months and almost years. The result which I have reached is that at that time I did not have any possibility of finding the truth behind the truth. I must apologize if I give the reason quite openly. The final reason is that I saw in the reports which I was in a position to recognize as false that I saw no reason to believe the remainder of the news which I was not in a position to check up on with my own eyes.
May I be quite clear? May I give an example? A certain foreign broadcasting station passed on the information that there were food riots in Dortmund. All I had to do was to telephone Dortmund to learn that no such trouble had occurred there! that there had been no unrest. In order to give you a particularly grotesque example, a foreign station reported that Berliners had been starving to such an extent that they had shot down the sea-gulls over the Spree so that there were no more seagulls in Berlin. With my own eyes I saw, of course, that this was wrong. Another example: It was reported that 10,000 Czechs had been arrested at the beginning of the war, these including the Lord Mayor of Prague. I sent a large number of journalists to Prague, who interviewed the Lord Mayor. He had not been arrested. These were reports the incorrectness of which I could check up on immediately; and therefore it was only too comprehensible that the things which I could not check up on from my own observation I did not believe either.
Furthermore, it is my conviction that the atrocious conditions which have become the topic of these trials today occurred only at a later period of time. They occurred, that is--and this is what is so important--at a period of time when the German people were living the burden of air-raids and the various other hardships of war-time conditions so that they could not be bothered with problems which did not touch upon their daily life.
In that period of time when the worst things occurred in the concentration camps, people were interested only in what was confined to their own daily needs.
Q When you received your information about concentration camps, did you hear anything particular about foreigners in concentration camps; or, from what you heard, were you of the opinion that on the whole the concentration camps were an instrument to keep law and order at home?
A When I was a Russian prisoner-of-war, it was an extreme surprise to hear for the first time that foreigners and prisonersof-war had also been in concentration camps. I did not know that up to that moment.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there questions by other defense counsel or by the prosecution?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you were immediately under Dr. Goebbels, were you not? You were his immediate subordinate?
A I was not his immediate subordinate. Between him and myself there were several agencies, later on one or two.
Q You were under Goebbels in his capacity as the Reich Minister for Propaganda?
A Yes.
Q At the same time he was the Reich Propaganda Director of the Nazi Party, was he not?
A Yes, indeed.
Q. He was also the Gauleiter of Berlin?
A Yes.