For this reason, in constant compromises, I put my own 26 June A LJG 19-1 wishes, my own misgivings, my own political attitudes aside, and in many conversations I advised my friends to do so, also, if they complained that they and their interests were badly treated.
I came to the conviction that millions of Germans had joined the Party only for this reason and in this expectation. They thought they were serving a good cause. thing to this cause, everything except their honor. Meanwhile, I had to realize that the leader of this cause accepted the sacrifice of those idealists, that he used it and that, through senseless, inhuman murder--unique in history--sullied their honor, a murder which not only no necessity of war could have justified, but also one for which one could not even find any reason in any necessity of war. customary oath of unconditional loyalty to Hitler in 1933. For whatever reason you did this, the fact that you took this oath is true, is it not?
A Yes. I twice swore an oath to the Weimar Constitution in 1933 and 1938.
I may add something. It was always and it still is my conviction that no oath relieves a human being of his general duty to humanity. No one is made an irresponsible tool by an oath. My oath would never have made no carry out an order if I had realized that it was criminal. Never in my life did 1 obey anyone blindly. For that reason, I do not refer for any of my actions to my duty under this oath.
Q Did you keep the oath which you took?
A Yes. I have not been suspected of any actions which I could have considered criminal or a violation of written or unwritten laws. Moreover, I did not keep the oath which I took to Hitler, but to the German people.
Q How long did you keep the oath?
A I kept it to the end. Then, it is true, against the 26 June A LJG 19-2 order which I was given, I remained in Berlin.
When Editor and his entourage fled into death or fled toward the West, I was the only high, official to my knowledge to remain in Berlin. I collecte the employees of the high Reich agencies who had been left to their fate. I collected them in the ruins of my office. Hitler had left an order to fight on. The Berlin battle commandant could not be found. Thus, as a civilian, I felt obliged to offer the Russian Marshal Zhukov capitulation. When I was sending off the ommissary to go across the battleline, the last adjutant of Hitler appeared--General Burgsdorff--and he wanted to shoot me by way of fulfilling Hitler's order. Nevertheless, the capitulation came about, even though it was signed by the battle commandant, who had been found in the meantime. Thus, I believe I kept my oath, the oath which I had taken to the German people in the person of Hitler.
Q Did you hold an office in the P arty?
Q Were you a political loader? organizations that are accused here?
Q Did you ever take part in a P arty rally?
Q At any of those celebrations of the 8 November in Munich? work from 1935 to 1945. to the rest of the affidavits. Again I may limit myself to a very brief presentation to supplement what is said in the affidavits. what I had been previously, Chief Editor of the Wireless Service.
That was the name of the German radio news service. I remained 26 June A LJG 19-3 that for five more years.
of the Reich Radio Company, was incorporated into the Propaganda Ministry in its press section. Since I was a specialist in journalistic news service, I soon was entrusted with the news agencies--first, the smaller ones, such as Transozean or Europa-P ress or Eildienst. Later I was entrusted with the big German news service. for I was only an employee of the Ministry are not an official. I had no right to determine the Contents of the news. I had only the organizational supervision, but I believe that my advice was valuable at the time. nature. In December 1938, I become head of the section, German Press. I became Ministerialdirigent. As an official, I still thought myself the fournalist I had been for decades previously. I continued to direct the German Press Section until the spring of 1942. superior, Reich P ress Chief Dr. Dietrich. For that reason, I became a soldier and went to the Eastern Front.
In the fall of 1942 I was called back by Dr. Goebbels. Dr. Goebbels approved my previous criticism, of which he know, and he offered to make me head of the Radio Section of his ministry. I answered that I could return to the Propaganda ministry only if I had the certainty that a political end of the war would be sought and that total military victory world not be sought, which from the first day of the war I had considered impossible. I told Dr. Goebbels at that time that a fight to self- destruction, as the gods fought at Vesuvius, I was not willing to participate in as a propagandist. Dr. Goebbels answered that Hitler and he, also, were seeking a political end to the war by reaching some sort, of understanding.
He promised me 26 June A LJG 19-4 that he would inform me in time if he noticed that the Fuehrer was changing his intentions.
Dr. Goebbels repeated this promise. Each time that he reported it, he always gave me substantiated indications about the political efforts in progress at the moment. Today I have the feeling that he broke his promise.
became Ministerial Director.
Q Those were your official positions; they were less known among the public. Better known were your radio speeches. What about them? German station, and on the Deutschland Sender. At the beginning of the war I spoke daily on all the stations, I believe for three or four months. Then I spoke three times a week, then twice a week, and finally once a week again. At first these radio speeches were just reviews of newspaper articles, that is, a collection of quotations from domestic and foreign newspapers. After the beginning of the war, however, these speeches, of course, became polemic on the basis of quotations mostly from foreign papers and foreign radio stations.
Q Did your speeches have an official character? The prosecution says that they were, of course, under the control of the Propaganda Ministry.
A That is not true in that form. The speeches were not official. At the beginning they were decidedly private work. Of course, I could not prevent in the course of time, that the private speeches of a man holding a position in the Propaganda Ministry were no longer considered as private, but semiofficial.
Q You say private work, which was later considered semi-official. To clear up this question, I. would like to ask this. Could one criticize these speeches, or was one arrested for so doing?
A One was not only allowed to criticize, but one did so. I had extensive correspondence with my critics, although only with these who signed their names. There were also anonymous critics, of course, but I may add that the anonymous critics only had general complaints. certain protection for my speeches, apparently on the assumption that they were semi-official. The suggestion was made that they would appear in any possible trials. I refused this, explaining -- as I publicly explained repeatedly -- that people have to be allowed to criticize something. If it is forbidden to criticize the State and the Government, there must be an allowance, at least, to criticize the press, the radio, and me.
Q How did you work out these speeches? Were they written out and censored beforehand?
A I always refused to let then be censored beforehand. The material was gathered very carefully. It was kept in the so-called Archib-Schnelldienst which has been applied for and approved by the Tribunal but which could not be found. and reports from foreign broadcasts. The investigation of doubtful matters was done by my own agents. A rough draft of the speech was then dictated. That was a different procedure than in the case of an article; every sentence was not polished. In a written work, every Word counts, but when it is spoken, the total impression is more important.
Q You worked in the Propaganda Ministry; Dr. Goebbels was the Minister. His name has been mentioned here frequently in various positions, as Reich Minister for Propaganda, Reich Propaganda Director of the NSDAP, Reich Deputy for the Total War Effort, and Gauleiter of Berlin. In which of these capacities did you deal with Dr. Goebbels?
Q Were you his representative?
A No. In the last two and a half years I was his deputy for radio, and was the head of one of twelve sections of his Ministry. Dr. Goebbels' representatives were his state secretaries. The last one was Dr. Naumann, who was his successor for one day.
Q Was Dr. Goebbels your only and direct superior?
A No. Between him and me there were many offices at the beginning, and there were still a few later. This is the first time, here in the dock, that I am without official superiors.
Q. Which of the defendants did you know, or with whom did you have official or personal relations?
A. I had official conversations two or three times, shortly after 1933, with Funk, who was State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry at that time. Those conversations concerned economic and organizational matters. I discussed with him the financial plans for the reorganization of this new system. matter. I spoke to Seyss-Inquart in The Hague, and to Papen in Istanbul. I know all the others only at a distance and met them personally only here during the trial.
Q. How about Hitler?
A. I never had a conversation with him. In the course of twelve years, however, I saw him several times at the Reichstag, of course, at big occasions, and at receptions. Once I was at his headquarters and was invited to dinner with a large number of other people. Otherwise, I received instructions from Hitler only through Dr. Dietrich or his representative, or through Dr. Goebbels or his various representatives.
Q. What were your relations with Dr. Goebbels? Were you friendly with him? Did you see him often?
A. One cannot say that we were friends. The relationship was rather reserved, official, and also somewhat distant. I saw him personally less frequently than other follow workers of Dr. Goebbels of my rank. However, I believe he treated me with more respect than any other of his co-workers. To that extent I held a special position in a sense. I esteemed Dr. Goebbels' intelligence and his ability at least sometimes to change his own opinion when he heard a better argument. I saw him about twice a year during the first five years. Then I became head of the section I saw him perhaps once a month. After the outbreak of war I saw him daily in the course of a conference of 30 to 50 fellow workers; and in addition, about once a week I had a conference on special subjects with him.
Q. Now we come to the subject of propaganda. Can you sketch the propaganda system in the Third Reich?
A. I shall attempt to do so. There were three sorts of propaganda. The first was the unorganized agitation of the radical fanatics in the Party. It was shown in all fields, in the field of religion, racial policy, art, general policy, and the conduct of the war. The head of this unorganized agitation, increasingly, was Bormann. of the NSDAP. The head of this was Dr. Goebbels. It attempted to bring the agitation of the radicals into some form capable of discussion. Ministry.
Q. The prosecution maintained at the beginning that you were head of the Radio Section of the Propaganda Division of the NSDAP. How about that?
A. The prosecution has withdrawn that assertion. They said that they had no proof. It would have been more correct to say that this statement can be proved to be false. I refer to my affidavit 3469-PS, point 37. There I state that in contrast to all of my predecessors, as for as I know, as head of the Radio Division of the Ministry I was not at the same time head of the Radio Section of the Party. Today I expand this statement by saying that I held no office whatever in the Party.
Q You have been accused of having helped Dr. Goebbels to plunge the world into the blood-bath of aggressive war. Is that true? Did. Dr Goebbels ever speak with you about aggressive plans?
A No; I never heard of any intention to wage aggressive war, either from Dr. Goebbels or from anyone else. several times at which it was said that various aggressive plans were discusse for example,before the attack on Czechoslovakia, before the attack on Poland, and on Norway, and on Russia. Did you participate in these conferences? Did you hear of them?
A I did not participate in a single one of these conferences. I heard of them for the first time here in the courtroom. possibility of war ever mentioned?
A No; but the danger of war was mentioned as early as 1933, the danger of war determined by the one-sided disarmament of one state in the midst of other states which were highly armed. This disproportion between armament and non-armament had to appear as an inducement for attack. were one of the main reasons first for the demand for disarmament of the other powers and afterwards for the German demand for equality of armament. That scorned completely logical to me, but never was the danger of war mentioned without at the same time a reference to the German will for peace. That seemed to me honest. imminent, I saw Dr. Goebbels more often than ever before. I gave Dr. Goebbels a number of little memoranda, a contribution from my field of work in the news system, as it were. They were an analysis of the public opinionof Western countries, and they repeatedly indicated that England was determined to wage war in case of a conflict about Poland.
I recall that Dr. Goebbels was deeply impressed when I gave him one of these memoranda once. He expressed his concern, and decided immediately to fly to Hitler, He said to me, verbatim: "Believe me, we did not work successfully for six years in order to risk everything in a war now."
which have been mentioned here in the courtroom in part.
I was convinced of the honesty of the will for peace in Hitler's policy. Hitler secretly thought differently or acted differently. I cannot form a judgment, because the documents of the other side have not yet been published. But if it should be as the documents submitted here say, I must state that I was deceived about the aims of German policy.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, at the beginning of my case, I said that it was not possible to bring the radio speeches of the defendant Fritsche here. I tried to obtain them from a German radio station, and succeeded in getting a small part from the years 1939 and 1940. I have selected some of those speeches which I should like to submit as Fritsche Exhibit No. 1. quote only one sentence from the radio speech of Fritsche of the 15th of November, 1939:
"The only reason for war, which our people on the whole have never desired, the only reason for war which can be justified morally is the fight for the existence of the people." of the war, he re-asserted during the war as well. As proof of this, I should like to quote another passage from the same document, from a radio speech of Fritsche of the 23rd of July, 1940:
"We Germans in the course of all our history, and especially twenty years ago, experienced enough blood and tears and human suffering to lock it honestly in the eye now.
"We know what war meant, and therefore we did not want war. And because the Fuehrer knows it so well, and experienced it, that is why on the 6th of October and the 19th of July he offered peace." BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Did youin any way, Mr. Fritsche, have anything to do with war preparation from the intellectual or organizational standpoint?
A Not directly, but perhaps indirectly. I supported the demands for disarmament of the others, and for the equalization of armament; and I advocated the armament of the German people and Wehrhaftmachung. This could be misunderstood and easily misinterpreted. I should like to explain it. It means the ability to fight in one's own defense. mouth, that the restoration of its military sovereignty would be only for defensive purposes.
Q How and where did you represent those facts? time to time. I was a patriot, but I feel myself t be free from Chauvanism, or exaggerated nationalism. As an historian, I realized at that time already that especially in the narrow confines of Europe the old nationalism was an anachronism, and that it was in contrast to modern weapons. At that time, I believed in Hitler's doctrine. I believe that, in Hitler's doctrine, there were certain elements for a new type of mutual understanding among peoples, particularly the dogman which was repeatedly set up: "Only the nationalism of one people can understand the nationalism of another people." through the development of arms, and so forth, that the time of nationalism is past, if mankind does not went to commit suicide, and that the period of internationalism has come, for good or evil.
At that time, however, nationalism was not considered a crime. Everyone represented it. It can be seen that it is still advocated today, and I also advocated it. campaign was held in Germany, intended to weaken the victim of a planned attack and to prepare the German people psychologically for thenew drive. However, the prosecution states this without reference to you personally. And although the direct charge is not made that you put on these press campaigns, nevertheless the prosecution points out very strongly your connection with this practice.
What have you to say about your role in this publicity battle? described in detail in my affidavit No. 3469 PS, Points 23 to 33. From the Rhineland occupation on, up to the attack on the Soviet Union, these descriptions also contain information about the type and extent of my participation in those drives. In addition, I may emphasize that in this description of my affidavit, there is no reference to the question of right.
There is no political explanation. I should like to emphasize expressly that in each case, in each drive, I believed I was representing a good cause. It would be going too far to explain that here for each case, especially since many of these cases have already been discussed here. I assume, I hope that the prosecution will ask questions on this subject for I assert that no matter how the facts may have been in the individual cases, at every moment from the Anschluss of Austria on to the attack on Russia, information was given to me and through me to the German public which admitted of no doubt in the legality of the urgent necessity of the German procedure and I, as the only surviving informer of the German public, consider it my duty to be ready here for any investigation of the correctness of this statement of mine, which is of especial importance for the German public. considered typical for the various states of tension of the individual cases. What have you to say to that?
A Without exception,these headlines from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" these headlines were submitted to me and, of course, I had to confirm their correctness but I may emphasize that the "Voelkischer Beobachter" was not typical of the result of my press policy. The "Voelkischer Beobachter" general had its own direct connections with the headquarters and with Hitler. Typical products of my press policy were the papers "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung," the "Munchener Neueste Nachrichten", and the "Hamburger Fremdenblatt", to name only a few. propaganda, you urged war to the extent that you tried to awaken hostile feelings with the German people towards other people of Europe and the world; for example, it is said in Captain Sprecher's speech for the prosecution that agitation against the people of the Soviet Union and an atmosphere of senselessness and hatred were created by you or that you had incited the Germans to blind hatred. Did you dot heat?
A No, I did not do that. Never did I attempt to awaken hatred agains the English, French, Americans, or Russians, and so forth. There is not a single word of this typo in perhaps a thousand speeches which I made before the microphone. I did speak strongly against governments, members of govern ments, governmental systems but I never preached general hatred or I did not attempt to awaken it indirectly as was the case -- and I ask your pardon for my taking an example from the courtroom -- at the moment when a film was presented here and the words were spoken "here you see Germans are laughing at Yugoslavs"; never did I try to awaken hatred in this general form and I may point out that for years many anti-National Socialist statements from certain countries, which were neutral at that time, remained unanswered.
agitation and the awakening of hatred? should be waged against people or hatred should be awakened against people. That was expressly forbidden because we wanted to win people over to our side but again and again I was requested to awaken hatred against individuals and against systems.
Q Who requested you to do this?
A Dr. Goebbels, Dr. Dietrich and often on the direct orders of Adolf Hitler, The reproach was repeatedly made that the German press and the German radio did not awaken any hatred at all against Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin but there may be three personalities popular as efficient men. For that reason, for years the German press was forbidden to mention those three names at all unless in an individual case permission was obtained with exact instructions. propaganda to agitation and to the awakening of hatred and did not carry it out?
A I should like to outline exactly what I did. When the reproaches of Dr. Goebbels and Dr. Dietrich piled up, I had all caricatures from the first orsecond world war collected -- from England, the United States of America, France and a few from Russia. In addition, I had all anti-German propaganda pictures which I could lay my hands on collectively. Then, in five to six demonstrations of several hours each, I presented these caricatures and these films to German journalists and German radio speakers. I, myself, spoke only two or three minutes in introduction. It is quite possible that I produced hatred through these showings but the condemnation of this means of producing hatred in the midst of war, I should like to submit to the judgment of the Tribunal.
In any case, Dr. Goebbels said later that he was dissatisfied and we were "bunglers." I may add one statement. I would have had a means of carrying out my orders of awakening real hatred, that is, not one means but a whole group of methods; that would have been, to give only one example, a German publication of the last two volumes of the Tarzan series, an adventure series which was very popular in Germany at that time -- the last two volumes were strongly anti-Germany. I need not describe them here. I did not use such products of former anti-German propaganda. I always deliberately ignored such methods. propaganda, what means did you use in your propaganda during the war? concept of necessity and of the fighting with necessity and compulsion. I repeatedly painted the results of defeat very bluntly and systematically I gave quotations from the press and the radio of the enemy countries. The enemy demands for unconditional surrender I quoted repeatedly. I often used the expression "Uberversailles" and I emphasized, I described the results of the loss of the war very pessimistically. I cannot make a comparison with reality today. fight of the Allies was not against the German people but only against its leaders; did you keep that a secret from the German people? that and I called it "incredible." For example, I used the trick of quoting the wording of a medieval declaration of war which had said that only the King of France was being attacked but that one wanted to bring freedom to the French people.
THE PRESIDENT: Would that be a convenient time to break off?
(The Tribunal adjourned until 27 June 1936, at 1000 hours. ) THE MARSHAL : If it please the Tribunal, the report is made that defendant Ribbentrop is absent.
DR. FRITZ : Mr. President, first a very brief explanation. Yesterday I repeatedly mentioned the Indictment and intend to do so in the course of the examination. I also mentioned the presentation of Fritsche's case by Captain Sprecher, of the session of the 23rd of January 1946. BY DR. FRITZ :
Q Mr. Fritsche, yesterday you spoke of your radio speeches concerning the Allied propaganda. My last question. Did you attempt to split the front of the Allies by your propaganda ?
A Of course, I attempted to do that. All idelogical and all practical political contrasts or differences between the individual Allied Nations I worked out. I considered that a permissible method of waging war. At that time, I wanted a split between the Allies just as much as today I wish their unity, since German would be the first victim of any conflict. throughout Germany. Did you agitate against Democracy ?
A I never agitated against Democracy as such. I spoke against the democracy of the thirty-six parties. The democracy which had prevailed in Germany previously, the democracy under which strong groups were powerless, such as the Marxist parties, for example; the foreign democracy I criticized only for two points; first, for the elements which limited the basic thought of democraties. I believe it is superfluous; perhaps it would be misunderstood to enumerate them today. Secondly, I criticized the demands of the foreign democracies to force their form of government on us. At the time, according to my knowledge and information at the time, it seemed unjustified to me.
Q Then, did you consider dictatorship a better form of government ?
A I should like to express that. At that time, under the conditions at that time, when only for a temporary emergency period, yes; today, of course not. After the totalitarian form of government has led to the catastrophy of the murder of five million, I consider this form of government wrong even in times of emergency.
I believe any kind of democratic control, even limited democratic control would have made such a catastrophy impossible.
trine of the master race. The prosecution makes this charge indirectly against you. How about that? race. I even avoided this term. I expressly prohibited this term for the German Press and the German radio at the time when I was in charge of one or the other. I believe that the term "master race" played a greater role in the anti-Nationalist propaganda than in Germany proper. I do not know who invented this term. To my knowledge, it was publicly mentioned only by men like Dr. Ley, for example, and I must explain this frankly and expressly, these men were not taken seriously by anyone in this connection. It is true, however, that this term played a great role, without being expressed openly, in the SS because of its racial exclusiveness, but people of intelligence, tact, of insight and some knowledge of the world avoided the use of this word extremely carefully.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, at this opportunity, I should like to offer an affidavit to the Tribunal by Dr. Scharping of the 17th of May, 1946. Dr. Scharping was Government Councillor in the Propaganda Ministry to the end. From this affidavit I shall now quote only one sentence from Page 13. I quote: "In this connection it can be explained that Fritsche always opposed the term "the maste race". He even expressly prohibited the use of this word on the radio." BY DR. FRITZ: radio speeches to prove this assertion. fully. The term "master race" is rejected in this quotation for the Jewish and for the German people. The quotation should not be misunderstood.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, that is in Captain Sprecher's speech for the prosecution, in the English text on Page 31 in the record.
BY DR. FRITZ: abroad. What was the difference?
A In my radio speeches there was no difference. Before the outbreak of war I made a slight difference in the speeches for Germany and those for other countries because the audience was different and because I had to presuppose a different level of knowledge. During the war my speeches on the Reich German radio were simply transmitted over the short wave station. What was said for Germany or for other countries could be mutually controlled. In the twelve years during which I spoke on the German radio, I never permitted my speeches to be translated, since that always involved a difference of emphasis. Articles can be translated, perhaps official speeches can be, but not my talks, which were rather light and half improvised.
Q Were your broadcasts abroad criticized internationally?
A Yes, frequently. During the war there was often daily criticism from some country or other. I had those criticisms collected. I asked for them as documents but my application was refused. As far as I know, I am not accused of war agitation in these criticisms. also as an organizer. You are accused of having helped to create an important instrument for the asserted conspiracy. The prosecution says that for thirteen years you aided in the creation of the propaganda machine which the conspiracy was able to put to such good use. Did you create the Press organization of the National Socialist State? any part in its creation. Its creator was Dr. Goebbels, Dr. Dietric and Reichsleiter Amann. When, in the winter of 1938, I became head of the so-called German Press Section, I attempted to loosen the bonds which had been imposed on the German Press. I attempted that in the material and personal field. For example, hundreds of edi tors of other parties who had been dismissed in 1933 and '34 I recalled to the Press.
Today they will be angry at me. I had good intentions at the time. Then, in addition to the official Press conferences, which were very strictly controlled in their records by my superiors, I arranged so-called supplementary conferences in which I met with the representatives of the fifty or sixty more important papers and discussed more freely the possibilities of their work. I coined the slogan which was often used there; You can write any criticism in the German papers if you do not put this criticism in big headlines but put it in the text in an elegant form. Many German journalists made use of this possibility in the past twelve years. I would be glad if this work, which was a hidden work, could be honored in some way today in the interest of these people who have, in part, returned to their profession as journalists out of personal confidence in me. Of course I must add that the possibility of criticizing was not unlimited.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, at this opportunity, with the approval of the prosecution, I offer the Tribunal a document as Fritsche Exhibit No. 4. It is an excerpt from a letter of the German Lt. General Dittmar, who frequently commented on the military situation on the German radio during the war and who is an English prisoner. The well known English radio commentator, Mr. Lidell-Hart, sent the British prosecution an excerpt from the letter. This memorandum which was sent to me, I should like to quote briefly. May I quote this passage?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may.
DR. FRITZ: Dittmar writes: "The possibility of retaining the critical attitude in his radio commentary is due primarily to the silent approval and the protection of Hans Fritsche, the head of the political radio. He believes that Fritsche was a secret opponent of the regime and was glad of the chance to have found a commentator who discreetly expressed ideas which resembled his own and which insiduously would tend to reduce confidence in the regime.