of at the beginning of May 1942 when I came to the Sixth Army. I immediately opposed it. Whether it was carried out or not, I doc not know. Field Marshal Paulus is doubtless correct when he says that in his army he had already prevented the execution of this order. At any rate, I made it my business to have the order as sue rescinded, and I achieved this. The Sixth Army at my advice gave certain information to the High Command. I am of the conviction that many army leaders acted in the same way as the leader of the Sixth Army and simply did not carry out the order. At any rate, it was expressly rescinded. speech of 5 July 1941.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, that is in the English record of Captain Sprecher, page 32-33. BY DR. FRITZ: you had agitated for ruthless measures against the population of the Soviet Union.
THE PRESIDENT: We can not find it here. What is the PS number?
DR. FRITZ: It is in the transcript, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not got the transcript here. We have the document book. The document book does not contain 32 and 33 pages. It only contains 32--or 31 and a little bit.
DR. FRITZ: The number is 3084 PS, US Exhibit 723.
THE PRESIDENT: It is page 14 in our book. Well, did you say 5 July?
DR. FRITZ: 5 July, 5 July 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have got the 7th and 10th of July but not the 5th. What page in the shorthand notes was it?
DR. FRITZ: On page 32, page 33 in the English transcript I have the English transcript here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you had better read it then.
DR. FRITZ; This quotation from Captain Sprecher's speech for the Prosecution reads:
"As letters from the front given to foreign correspondent wherever the German Army advanced and soldiers on leave confirm, in this battle in the East, it is not one ideology fighting against another, not one political system against another, but culture, civilization, and human dignity fighting against devilish principles of an underworld." less measures against the population of the Soviet Union, nor did I want to villify the people of the Soviet Union.
I refer to the total effect of the speech of the 5th of July.
I do not wish to read this speech, but I should like permission to sum it up briefly.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in my document book 1-- I do not know whether the Tribunal already has it-
THE PRESIDENT: No, we haven't go it.
DR. FRITZ: I have all these radio speeches of the defendant Frizache, from which the prosecution quoted passages against him. I have included them in their full text.
THE PRESIDENT: It has just been handed up to me. What page is it
DR. FRITZ: Pages 8 to 13. That is the radio speech of the 5th of July. 1941. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Will you continue?
A. I ask for permission to sum up the contents very briefly what German soldiers had seen in their advance in the Soviet Union, especially as to prisoners killed in the prisons in various cities. I did not describe those things once more, I only recalled them from the reports which had been given out in the time. From them I drew the conclusion that now one saw how necessary the fight was against a system under which such atrocities were possible. For the peoples of the Soviet Union I expressly used words of sympathy.
Q. In the same connection, and with the same tendency, the prosecution then quotes a sentence from a paragraph of you radio speech of the 10th of July 1941.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, that is in document 1 -the speech of the 10th of July 1941--also in its full text, on pages 14 to 19.
Q (Continuing) What do you have to say to this charge?
A. In this quotation, and in this whole speech, what I just s aid becomes even clearer. I referred once more to the reports just mentioned. I also referred to the descriptions of foreign correspondents. I then, quite frankly, reported Moscow's attitude towards these events and I said, quite honestly, "Radio Moscow says that these atrocities are facts, but it maintains that these atrocities were not committed by Russians, but by Germans". into publicity.
I called millions of German soldiers as witnesses; 1 called their mothers and fathers and wives as witnesses. I finally called as witnesses the inhabitants of the occupied territories in which Germans were in power at the time, and in which, as I said, they were subordinated only to the normal law in their own breasts. Then I drew the conclusion: These German soldiers cannot have committed the atrocities, which were described by Berlin and Moscow equally. man atrocities to the Russians was ridiculous. I do not consider it ridiculous, I consider it tragic. It shows clearly, as I understand it, all the honesty of my conviction at that time, of the absolute clealiness and honesty of the whole German conduct of the war. I still believe today that murder and violence and special commandos, Sonderkommandos, were a foreign body from the more or less sound body of the German people and its Wehrmacht.
Q. Finally, the prosecution quotes a passage from your speech of the 9th of October 1941, another quotation from which was brought out elsewhere.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, this is in the Fritsche document book 1, the speech in its full text is on pages 20 to 25. The quotation of the prosecution are summed up in a document in the Fritsche document book of the prosecution, so that the Tribunal can compare it.
Q (Continuing) The prosecution concludes from this quotation that this was enthusiasm for the policy of the Nazi conspirators in their ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories.
What have you to say to that?
A. There is no question of ruthlessness either in the quotation given by the prosecution or in the rest of the text of the speech of the 9th of July, 1941.
I refer to my affidavit 3469-PS, paragraph 39, a paragraph which the prosecution very fairly quoted in this connection. sense of this speech? the Black Sea to the Bay of Biscay. I spoke of the possibility of using the resources of this enormous territoy. I said, "The possibilities of this continent are so significant that they can cover any need for war and for peace." I said, in this connection, that a starving out by blockade, such as was attempted in 1914-1918, was not out of the question. I spoke of the possibilities of the organization of Europe which could begin in the war. By that I meant the organization of European nations with equal rights. of ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories, but only winning them over politically and economically after the temporary phenomenon of war.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President; I now came to another subject, so perhaps this would be a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT; Yes.
DR. THOMA: (Counsel for the defendant Rosenberg): I have a request, Mr. President. I should like to speak for my client now. I would like to have my client excused from now on.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
(A recess was taken).
BY DR. FRITZ :
occupied countries ? that special individuals were being arrested, Jews, and non-Jews. labor ?
A I knew that millions of foreign workers were working in the Reich. I did not consider them slaves, for I saw them daily walking about free on the streets of all the cities. and their wages ? which came from the office of Sauckel and the German Labor Front. From these reports, among other things, I remember the fact that the foreign workers were put on the same basis and in the same position as the German workers, in every way. I further recall from the time that they came in that the so-called inferior treatment accorded Eastern workers had been done away with. I received reports from listeners complaining about the fact that foreign workers had a so-called better position than German workers; and in this connection, I remember a reference to the fact that the foreign workers were permitted to send home money in the form of exchange.
Many times I talked with foreign workers. I did not hear any specific or special complaints; but, on the other hand, in the Propaganda Ministry, through official channels, I heard very much about the care that was being given to foreign workers, even along cultural lines. Frequently I was approached by Sauckel or the German Labor Front -- I do not remember which it was -- with the request to have radio broadcasts sent to one or another group of foreign workers. I was approached also with the request for receiving programs to be given in camps of foreign workers.
Q Did you know that most of them did not come to Germany voluntarily ?
A That was the very part that I did not know. Here in this proceeding it was mentioned that Sauckel in one meeting or another made a statement about the fact that only a small percentage had come voluntarily, and that was the thing that was unknown to me. I heard the following complaints : First of all, that extravagant promises were made at the time of recruitment of the foreign workers, which promises could not be kept afterwards.
when I heard about that, and these doubts were raised in each section of the Propaganda Ministry. I remember having heard complaints from Poland dealing with the fact that employers were "pirating" Polish workers from each other. Propaganda Ministry and that he had many discussions with the Propaganda Ministry. Did you participate in these discussions and conferences ?
A No, I did not participate in these conferences. I believe that I met Sauckel here, and he reminded me of a meeting in the spring of 1945 at the home of Dr. Goebbels when there was some evening gathering taking place. of foreign workers in occupied countries ? the occupied countries ? supervision, or was not subordinate to me, not even in the branches of the press or radio. This propaganda was used under the direction and supervision of the Reich Commissar, military commander-in-chief, or governor. However, I did exert influence on this propaganda in the occupied countries. This took place on two, three or four occasions. damentals and principles which existed in the Reich, I should have been able to gather this from the echo abroad. I remember one special case which received special attention, when, in the case of the German radio in Paris, a certain man by the name of Friedrich attacked the Pope. I had this man Friedrich replaced. That was the extent of the influence I could make felt.
Dr. Goebbels, however, exerted rather more influence on the propaganda in the occupied countries, and he especially by way of his branch Ausland, or the branch Auslandspresse, Foreign Press, or by way of his liaison officer to the OKW used these various channels of exerting his influence.
Q Did you not give out any radio broadcasts to the occupied countries ?
A Yes, broadcasts of two types. An example for the first type is as follows.
At the time of the occupation, Radio Paris was under German influence. Despite that, I retained the old German broadcast in the French language via Radio Stuttgart. I wanted to have it understood quite specifically that the occupation was an abnormal and a temporary situation, and anything that was taking place during the period of occupation did not have anything to do with that part of, let us say, German-French understanding and language exchange which was being carried on by these two mother countries.
The second example is as follows. It concerns German broadcasts in the Spanish and Portuguese languages. I had these transmitted through three stations in Southern France, for it was easier to receive these transmitters in the Pyrenees region. The basis for my work in this connection was a contract which we had with these stations, and the payment of regular charges. Negotiations for this contract were carried out through the Foreign Office.
Q I shall now turn to a different topic. You are accused of making antiSemitic statements. Were you anti-Semitic, and in what way did you participate in anti-Semitic propaganda ?
A I was not anti-Semitic in the idea of a noisy anti-Semitism. The prosecution has asserted that all defendants -- that is, including myself -shouted, "Germany awake, and Judism die." I will state under my oath, never did I raise cry to this effect or one similar to it. I was not anti-Semitic in the sense of the radical theories or methods beginning with Fritsche to Streicher. Jewish agitator of all times, could hardly have excelled Fritsche when it came to libels against the Jews. I protest against this statement. I do not believe that I deserve any such accusation. Never did I give out any propaganda dealing with ritual murders, Kabala, and the protocols of the Elders of Zion. primitive agitation. For humanitarian reasons, I regret that I had to give further statement but I cannot refrain from making this statement in the interests of Truth. rejected the "Stuermer". I personally during a period of 13 years never quoted this paper; and the "Stuermer" was not quoted in the German press.
The editors during my term of office did not belong to the Journalistic Union; the publisher did not belong to the publishers' organization or union during my term of office.
How things developed along these lines later on, I did not know. "Stuermer". However, I did not succeed. Then it was proposed that I censor this paper, the "Stuermer". However, I declined the offer. I wanted to prohibit the publishing of the "Stuermer", not just for the simple reason of prohibiting only one page of the newspaper "Stuermer", which was the most effective anti-German propaganda which ever existed, but I wanted to prohibit the whole of the "Stuermer" for reasons of good taste. I wanted to have it stand out as a source of radicalism against which I fought in every line and at every place. "Stuermer" after 1933 to half a million lay in the same cause as the secret of the sudden increase of such organizations as the SA. The Party in 1933 had blocked the bringing in of new members, and presently many people tried to affiliate themselves, if not directly with the party, then with some organization connected with the Party, such as, perhaps, the SA. Or they tried to be able to prove that they had a connection with some National Socialist organization, and to be related to it, by subscribing to the "Stuermer", or something similar. in this sense : I wanted a restriction of the predominant influence of Jewry in German politics, economy, and culture, such as it had manifested itself after the First World War. I wanted a restriction to that extent so that the relative importance of the participation of the Jews would be in line with the population.
All restrictions were up to that degree, so that the proportionate participation of the Jews would be in line with the population of Germany and this view of mine which I held, I proclaimed publicly but I did not exploit these views in a systematic propaganda light or way. Those anti-Semitic statements with which I am charged by the prosecution have a different connection. The facts are as follows: After the outbreak of the war, frequently I referred to the fact that Jewish emigrees, immediately after 1933, were the first ones to emphasize that a war against the National Socialist German State is necessary; for instance, Emil Ludwig or George Bernhardt and others. As far as I recall, this was the only connection in which I made anti-Semitic statements of any kind. I cannot say this without being asked to be permitted to emphasize one more point. Only in this proceeding here did I learn that in the Autumn of 1939 there was more at stake than just one city or one street for a way through the Corridor; that in truth and in fact, a new division or partition of Poland had already been declared only perhaps in part and only her in this proceeding did I learn that Hitler had confirmed the warnings against the Jews by the terrible act of a murder. If I had known both of these things at that time, then I would have pictured the role of Jewish propaganda quite differently before the outbreak of the war.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to the document which has already been submitted, Fritsche Exhibit No. 2, deposed by Dr. Scharping, with special reference to pages nine to eleven. This document is found in my Document Book No. 2; however, I don't know whether this document book has been submitted to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it has.
DR. FRITZ: Pages nine to eleven. I would just like to refer to the contents of this document. The prosecution has quoted a passage from the book by Mueller, dealing with the Propaganda Ministry. According to this, among other things, it was the task of this Ministry to enlighten the population about the Jewish question. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. According to the picture drawn by the prosecution, matters stood as though you were the one charged with the task of this enlightenment; is that correct ?
The "Department Jewry", that was a branch of the Propaganda Ministry
A. No. which carried on all this propaganda. I never managed this department of propaganda.
Q. I should like to interpolate a question. The defendant Streicher, on the 29th of April, testified and stated that the Propaganda ministry published National Socialist correspondence which, of course, was sent to "Der Stuermer" as well and in other pamphlets several other anti-Semitic articles were contained. Is that true ?
A. No. National Socialist correspondence was not published by the Propaganda Ministry but by the Reich President of the NSDAP; however, I did not have the impression as though the rather remarkable policy followed by "Der Stuermer" had been characterized through these articles. On the other hand, "Der Stuermer" may have brought one or the other article which was given out by the NSK.
Q. The prosecution quoted a passage from a speech which was made over the radio on the 18th of December 1941. This speech will be found in my document book no. 1, pages 26 to 32. It contains the entire speech. In this instance, you said that "the fate of Jewry in Europe had been rather uncomfortable and that this fate in all probability would stretch over to the New World as well."
The prosecution holds the view that this was a proclamation of further actions in the persecution of Jews, that you intended to carry through further Jewish persecution. What can you tell us about this? in Europe. According to the things that we know today, this must look as though I had meant the murder of Jews at in this connection, I should like to explain and state at that time I did not knew about these murders; therefore I could not have meant it. I did not even mean the evacuation of Jews, for even this factor was something which was not carried out in Berlin until a year or two later. What I meant was simply the elimination of Jews from politics and economy, economic life and the expression "uncomfortable" hints at this and is an expression which would be quite inexplicable in its likeness and why did I speak about the Jews in America in this connection? The sentence quoted by the prosecution is very closely connected with a report which precedes it in this speech, that a Jewish National Council had told president Roosevelt that they wanted to enter the war. Not even this connection of thought, which is understandable now, that was not brought in by me without good reason. The largest part of this speech in question, perhaps nine-tenths of it, in fact, deals with that investigation commission which were beign used in the United States to investigate the causes of Pearl Harbor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are a lot of pages in this.
DR. FRITZ: The document book No. 1, Mr. President, pages 26 to 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; I wanted to know whether first of all we are on page 31.
DR. FRITZ: He is referring in his statements, which he is making now, to the entire contents of the speech, Mr. President. The prosecution had quoted only the last paragraph of this speech. BY DR. FRITZ: whether on the weapons or the arms of the Americans they maybe had been inattentive and I advised to check also in American politics, whether someone might not have been interested in the outbreak of the war and in this connection, I reminded that an investigating committee of the American Senate, twenty years after the first world war, was investigating the entry of the United States into the first world war.
I said verbatim: "This Senate Committee proved that Wilson deliberately or not deliberately upon his entrance into the war, was the victim of several war mongers."
THE PRESIDENT: The investigation committee of the Americans about the entry into the last war? Isn't he going rather far back?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I believe that the defendant can stop at this point. He wanted to show with this point only, with this quotation, that was the last paragraph, the one quoted by the prosecution, to incriminate him; that this paragraph was torn from its contents, that is the fact he wanted to show, Mr. President.
an excerpt from a radio speech of the 18th of March, 1941. TheProsecution was of the opinion that this was an incitement for the persecution of Jews, and they said, further, that it was proof of the Propagand Ministry's endorsement of the master race.
Mr. President, this speech of the 18th of March, 1941, may be found in my document book No. 1, pages 2 to 7. BY DR. FRITZ: What can you tell us in this connection? Please comment on this.
A I do not wish to read this quotation. I rather ask you that you read it carefully yourself and after you have read it you can see that I completely agreed with Mr. Roosevelt when he said that there was no master race. I endorsed the correctness of this sentence not only as applied to Germany and the German people but to Jewry as well. The prosecution concluded from this sentence that it was a justification for acts committed in Jewish persecutions in the past and that it was a foreboding of more persecutions to come. I can not quite understand this conclusion. It is not justified.
THE PRESIDENT: In our copy there is no date at the top of Page 2 of your Volume 1. -- Yes, I see it is in the index. Which page of it is the passage that the prosecution quotes?
DR. FRITZ: On Page 5 under Point 5, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
DR. FRITZ: It begins with the word: "But the crown --" and so forth. That is the quotation used by the prosecution. BY DR. FRITZ: the speech which you made on the 9th of October, 1941.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, this is to be found in Document Book No. 1, Pages 20 to 25; the entire speech will be found on these pages. BY DR. FRITZ:
In this paragraph, you, Mr. Fritsche, are speaking about a new wave of international Jewish, democratic, Bolshevistic agitation. What can you tell us about this?
A I have to say but little in this connection. This speech was made in those days of the sutumn of 1941 when the Reich's Press Chiefhad announced that German victory in the East had been decisive. I had warned the entire German Press about taking this slogan without reservations. I did not believe in this decision which supposedly had already taken place. I suggested to all German newspapers to speak about a prolonged duration of the war. In this speech of mine I wanted to decrease the effectiveness of the official victory bulletin. Therefore, in this speech , and perhaps for the first time in G ermany, I mentioned those three factors which, in fact, later on determined the war, the struggle against Germany in the East: First of all, the partisans; secondly, the international help in the way of munitions; and thirdly, propaganda. This last part alone was quoted by the prosecution. As I have already said, this last part is quite in accord with the knowledge and opinion I held at that time. speech which you made on the 8th of January, 1944.
DR. FRITZ: The complete speech, Mr. President, may be found in my document Book No. 1. It is speech No. 7, to be found on Pages 40 to 45. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q In this speech you are stating that it wasn't a new form of government or a new form of Socialism which had brought about the war but rather the agitation of Jews and plutocrats was responsible for this. How did you come to make that speech? to everything that I have already said, and beyond that, I should like to emphasize that this rather heated accusation was not made by me just out of the blue or just because I wanted to agitate. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to picture the connection to you briefly. The topic of this speech was the differences of opinion which existed at that time between the Polish Emigree Government at Moscow--rather, at London, and the Soviet Government at Moscow.
There was a matter of territorial demands which they disagreed on, and on this occasion I quoted the London Times word for word. The London Tines said that "the relinquishing of the Polish regions, as demanded by Russia, was only a small and modest price for the absolute and reliable guarantee to Poland of help through the Soviet Union." This statement made by the London Times I used as a matter of course in a polemic statement in which I said: "Yes, if the Times had said these things in August of 1939, that we were concerned only with a city and with a road, then there wouldn't have been any war," and so forth. On this occasion I should like to state, all of these quotations, almost without exception, show only the combination of the concepts, Jews, plutocrats, Bolsheviks. The question of race was not the primary one, but the thing that was primary was the ideological struggle as it seemed to my mind, to be taking place.
Q. And the fourth quotation used by the prosecution, they referred to a speech which you made on the 13th of January, 1945. The prosecution used some excerpts-
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, this is speech No.8, contained in document Book No.1, to be found on pages 46 to 51. The prosecution in this case is quoting but two paragraphs, one on page 50 of my document book, paragraph 2. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. In these quotation the prosecution said that there is a Jewish influence on the British policies. How could you make these statements? What were your reasons?
A. The prosecution believe it to be possible to conclude from this quotation that it was the introduction to further persecution of the Jews, and to a complete destruction of the Jews. This conclusion, however, is not justified and proved; neither in the word nor in the sense nor when seen in the light of one context. In this case I shall forego giving you my picture of theconnections, not even to give you a brief summary.
It can be seen and can be gathered when you read the speech in question. However, I can not see how an appeal for the destruction of the Jews is being given in this speech of mine.
Q. As far as crimes against humanity are concerned, in that connection you are accused of libel against the Jews, and the logical conclusion or result was further persecutions. Therefore, I want to ask you about the murder of Jews. Did you know the decree of Hitler's, as testified by the witness Hoess, a decree according to which the Jews were to be murdered?
A. I should like to state under my oath, that I did not know of this order of Hitler's. If I had know it, I would not have served that person who had given this order for another hour. I should like to state further that this decree, as well as this entire complex action, was concealed with specific care from me and my coworkers, because I almost tracked this down; I came upon its traces and tracks.
number of innocent people?
A Yes. In February or March 1942 I received a letter from an SS leader of the Ukraine. However, I do not recall this man's name. The contents of the letter were to the effect that the author of the letter was the commander of an SS unit, that he had had a decree to kill the Jewish intelligents of his area, and upon the receipt of this order, he had suffered, a nervous breakdown and that he was in the hospital at the present time. impossible for him. He said he did not know me; however he was trusting me, had confidence in me that perhaps I could help in some way, and he asked me not to mention his name since he was bound to silence with his life. of this letter, I called Heydrich, the Obergruppenfuehrer of the RSHA and the Gestapo. I hardly knew him personally, but he declared himself quite willing to receive me immediately. I visited him, and in an unembroidered way put this question to him: Is your SS here for the purpose of committing mass murders? following things. He said that larger or smaller SS units had been sent out by him for police and supervisory purposes. He had given these units to be used by various ministers, Reich commissars, and so forth. These special details of SS men had been misused on various occasions, and he thought this might apply to the unit which had been placed at the disposal of Gauleiter Koch. immediately. He next noon he called me from headquarters as he said he would, and he said that for a fact this action had been tried, and it had been tried on the order of Koch. Koch, for his part, had referred to the Fuehrer for his authority, and had received it from him. He said that the Fuehrer had not defined his position and that I would hear it as soon as possible.
Two days later, Heydrich asked me to cone and visit him. On that occasion, he said Hitler had declared that he had not given this order; Koch now said that there was a misunderstanding and I was further told that Koch would be investigated and that steps had been started. At any rate, Heydrich promised me that this action would not be carried through, and I remember particularly well one sentence which was used in this discussion, and this applies to a declaration by Heydrich:
"Believe me, Mr. Fritsche, a person who has the reputation of being cruel does not have to be cruel. He can act humanly." Sixth Army and was sent to the Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. I didn't understand that last sentence. Heydrich said "Believe me, Mr. Fritsche..." and then -
THE WITNESS: "Anyone who has the reputation of being cruel does not have to be cruel. He can act humanly."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but then he went on about going to the Sixth Army.
THE WITNESS: Yes, shortly thereafter I became a soldier.
DR. FRITZ: He added, Mr. President, that shortly after this meeting with Heydrich, he himself, that is the defendant Fritsche, became a soldier and he specifically asked to be detailed to the Sixth Army which at that time was stationed in the Ukraine.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of this incident?
THE WITNESS: February-March 1942. BY DR. FRITZ: check and investigate the statements of Heydrich as to their correctness and authenticity? started to investigate on my own. station, and the answer was yes, several shootings actually did take place, specifically after the blowing up of certain housing blocks, an occasion upon which many German soldiers lost their lives, and these were shootings according to martial law. Boltava. Mostly I travelled alone. I found the population there in utmost peace; there were no signs of terror whatsoever, and I was received very well everywhere I went.
At Boltava, I checked with officers and soldiers. On these occasions as well, I was told, "Yes, there were some sentences after court martials at Kharkov, and the reason for these sentences was sabotage." there, and I spoke with the Sturmfuehrer Rexlach. He denied any shooting actions. He showed me the prison. There were perhaps 50 people there, certainly no more. I asked him about camps and he stated that there were none.
Then I visited a Ukrainian family; I questioned a German agricultural leader at Belgrade, and I met with the same result in every case: No shooting actions took place. through.
Q Before this letter which the SS man had sent you, didn't you have suspicion, perhaps from Allied radio broadcasts which you had access to? atrocities. I had these reports specially gathered at that time from the great amount of enemy broadcasts which we received every day, and then I had these reports investigated and checked.
Q And who concerned himself with this checking? department "Schnelldienst" or one of his co-workers, or myself.
Q And who checked with whom? was mention of the SS or Gestapo. They were mentioned as the ones who had perpetrated the murders in these reports of atrocity cases.
Q Among which of the many branches of this office did you inquire?
A We inquired at the various special experts' offices, and I do not doubt that we inquired of Eichmann, who has been mentioned in these proceedings here. Apart from that, we inquired of Sturmannfuehrer Spengler or his deputy Kiepinsky, both of them members of that office which, at that time or later, was taken over by Ohlendorf who has appeared here as a witness also. hauptamt, and some police agencies as well, especially if there were reports from a special area.