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.
Q What were the answers you received? completely wrong and was an invention, or that the report had this or that legal basis.
Frequently figures and details were reported in reports which in effect were quite disarming.
Q Is there anything set down in writing about this?
A Yes. The Important questions and answers were put in writing and partially they were multigraphed and sent to the various agencies within and outside the Propaganda Ministry. All the material was collected in the archives "Schnelldienst", material for which I applied but which has not been found.
Q Then, did you just believe these answers as they came to you? which were given to me by official sources and I had experienced on numerous occasions that the authenticity of these reports from these sources, to whom I applied had been proved very drastically.
Q What do you mean by that?
A I might perhaps give you just one example. The first propaganda of the war was that the report which was given out by Mar saw abut the destruction of the picture "black Madonna" of Zehnstachau. This report was transmitted around the world. We took German and foreign journalists to Zehnstachau, who could prove and check the fact that this report was not true. to cite another example in reply to this question put by my counsel, an example which really had its after-effects for mein this Courtroom some two or three days ago.
The British newspaper "The News Chronicle", on 24 September, 1939, had brought out the news -
THE PRESIDENT: what is the evidential value of the "News Chronicle", in 1939?
DR. FRITZ: The defendant wants to prove to the High Tribunal that he found that that many reports from abroad, dealing with German atrocities, actually were wrong and incorrect so that -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we do nut need details about that. No doubt there were frequent reports which were not accurate. We do not want you to go into details.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to prove with just one bit of news and one report, how at that time something could be denied which the world believed and then, in the shadow of this denial, quite unnoticed by ghe German public opinion, something did take place, such as a larger wave of arrests or a similar matter.
THE PRESIDENT: He can state the facts but he need not go into detail about particular issue of the newspaper. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Was it only once, Mr. Fritsche, that the falsehood of such foreign broadcasts were ascertained by you?
Q Please be very brief, Mr. Fritsche.
A One of my co-workers gathered material under the title "In seven weeks of war a list of 108 cases." The gathering of these reports, given out by our enemy, gave me a feeling of moral superiority as applied to that kind of reporting and this feeling was the basis of my later works, a work which could not be explained without this feeling. place and occurred only in the beginning of the war?
A No, that thought never occurred to me. The reports were so numerous in the beginning and I could check them in later years, especially as to my own person. just one statement out of many? hundred thousand Swedish -
THE PRESIDENT: What is the purpose of this ?
DR. FRITZ: I want to show how false statement about him was made how a wrong statement was applied to him personally. He wanted to state that briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I said already, there were, no doubt, erroneous statements made in the foreign press and every press. We cannot investigate these sort of matters.
DR. FRITZ: Then we shall pass on. We shall turn to another question, BY DR. FRITZ:
news service, have the feeling that where there is smoke there 27 Juneis fire?
Did you not believe that at least something must be true of the on my reports about murders and so forth in the German areas?
A. This feeling, as a specialist in reporting, I did not have. Again and again I thought and I also reminded the public of one erroneous bit of reporting of the First World War and I boy the Tribunal to grant me permission to mention this erroneous report briefly for it is the fundamentals of propaganda which I carried on.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I have already pointed out that we assume that there are a variety of errors. We do not want to go into detail.
DR. FRITZ: Then I shall turn to another question. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. But you knew for certain that the Jews had been transported away from the Reich, and you noticed that they disappeared from the streets?
A. Yes, that I did notice, even though this incident occurred very gradually, and up and beyond that I heard on one occasion how Dr. Goebbels mentioned, on the occasion of a ministerial conference, that a Gaulieter in Berlin had put the demand for the transporting of Jews.
Q. A nd in your opinion where were these Jews taken, what were you told about these things?
A. Dr. Goebbels told, me that they were being taken to reservations in Poland. Never was the assertion or the assumption made that they were being tkane to concentration camps, or that they were even being murdered.
Q. Did you try to inquire about these reservations into which the Jews were allegedly being taken?
A. Of course I did that. I learned something as was told me by a former co-worker of nine who had gone over into the administration of the Government General and who had a position in the region Biala-Bodlaska. he said that this area of his, under his control, had bee one a Jewish area, and he pictured the arrival and the housing of the so transportees.
He also mentioned the difficulties and the employment of Jews as workers as mechanics and on plantations. The picture he drew for me was drawn as a condition of humanity, and he told no that on his tract of land, the Jews were faring better than they were in the Reich.
Q. What was the name of this man?
A. Oberregienrungsrat Robert Kuehl.
Q. Did you hear unfavorable news about these deported Jews?
A. Yes. Sturmbannfuehrer Radke of the staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS reported, perhaps in the winter of 1942, that the mortality rate of the Jews in the eastern ghetts was abnormally high because of the changeover from spiritual to manual labor, and he mentioned there was some typhus, some isolated cases of this disease.
Apart from that Dr. Tauber, who was head of the department dealing with Jewish questions in the Propaganda ministry, told no in the year 1941, if I remember correctly, that in the occupation of Lomberg and Kovno pogroms had resulted, Jewish poggrams, but they were carried out by the local population. He assured me at the same time that the German authorities had taken steps against these pogroms. The references to things of that kind caused me to criticize matters severely, even though these things today look insignificant compated with the knowledge at our disposal today, This criticism by me was exerciser against my subordinates, and was also specially directed against co-workers and against members of the Gestapo and members of the party. Again and again I referred to the legal, political and moral necessity of the protection of these Jews, who had been entrusted to our care.
Q. Did you learn anything else about the fate of these Jews?
A. On many occasions Jews or relatives of Jews turned to me because of arrests or because they had been discriminated against as well as against non-Jews in large numbers.
All this did cause my name to become well-known to the public.
Without exception, I made these requests as my own and I tried to help. I tried to help through various offices, through the RS HA, through the personnel section of my ministry, through particular ministers and particular Gauleiters.
Q. Why did you turn to so many different authorities and offices?
A. Many, many requests were involved, and if my name had been used too many times, the effecticeness of my name would have been exhausted very quickly.
Q. Did you on occasion turn down these requests?
A. No, not in a single instance, and I should like to emphasize especially the fact, for a letter addressed to me in this prison here was not handed over to me but was published in the press instead. It was a letter in which a woman asserted that I had turned down a request for pardon. I remember this case exactly, and I should like to emphasize, but briefly, that in this case I had called -
THE PRESIDENT: It is sufficient for him to say that he did not turn them down. We do not want one instance of somebody who wrote to him.
How long are you going to be, Dr. Fritz?
DR. FRITZ: I believe I shall be able to conclude the entire case tomorrow morning, the entire case Fritsche.
Mr. President, I have just heard that there is no open session this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ: Otherwise I would have been able to conclude the entire case Fritsche today However, in this event, I hope to be able to conclude my examination in chief of the defendant and to call the witness, and I hope that tomorrow noon I shall be able to conclude.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal hopes so too, because, as I have pointed out to you, we do not want you to go into such elaborate detail. You have been going, in the opinion of the Tribunal, far too much into detail, and we want the matter dealt with more generally.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 28 June 1946, 1000 hours.)
Military Tribunal in the matter of the DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Bench, the Defendant Fritsche, toward the end of yesterday morning's session, testified as to how he tried to aid persecuted persons insofar as he could with the very small means which were at his disposal. In order to conclude this testimony, and with the approval of the prosecution, I submit Exhibit No. 6, which is an affidavit of Count Westarp, which may be found in my Document Book No. 2 on rages 23 to 25. I should like to submit this document to the attention of the High Tribunal. The date is the 15th of June, 1946. May I respectfully ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of the contents of this document. another affidavit, which is to be Fritsche Exhibit No. 8, deposed by a Mrs. Krueger residing in Berlin. This affidavit had not been incorporated into my document book as yet. However, the original has been deposed by Mrs. Krueger in G erman as well as in English and copies have been affirmed and sworn to. I should like to refer to the contents of this affidavit, especially to the last paragraph. From the next to the last paragraph we can see that Mrs. Krueger judges from singular cases and can speak generally as well, and that she has knowledge of the defendant.The last paragraph is quite interesting.
It deals with the manner of life led by the Defendant Fritsche. Apart from that, I should like to refer you Honors' attention only to the contents of this article and I ask that the High Tribunal take judicial notice of this document. affidavit which has been frequently quoted, deposed by Dr. Scharping, Fritsche Exhibit No. 2, which is to be found in the Document Book, Fritsche Exhibit No. 2, Pages 6 to 15. I should lik e to refer to Page 13. at the bottom of the page, and the top of age 14.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Mr. Fritsche, I should like to put two more general questions to you on this topic. During the last period of the war, didn't you try to find out something shout the final fate of the Jews?
A Yes. I used an opportunity that I want to discuss in the future. I asked a co-worker of Obergruppenfuehrer Gluecks, located at Oranienburg and Sachsenhausen, about the Jews. Briefly stated, his answer was as follows: that the Jews were under the special protection of the Reichsfuehrer SS and this Reichsfuehrer wished to make a political deal with them; that he considered them to be a kind of hostage, and that he had the wish that not a hair of their heads would be harmed.
Q In this proceeding, some of the prosecution's witnesses have stated that the German public knew about these murders. Now I should like to ask you, as a journalist, a journalist who worked in the National Socialist State, according to your knowledge and observation, what was the attitude of the broad mass of the German people to the Jews? Did the people know about the murder of the Jews? Please be brief. in this proceeding, I should like to state only a few observations which to me seem important. I shall omit the period of time which has already been described shortly after the First World War, a period of time in which certain anti-Semitic feelings were popular in Germany. I should like to state only that in the year 1933, at the time of the Jewish boycott which was established by the NSDAP, the sympathies of the German people openly turned to the Jews. During a period of years the "Party, embittered, tried to prevent the public from buying in Jewish stores. Finally, there were warnings of punishments to keep the people from buying there. A decisive factor in this development was the issuing of the Nuernberg Laws. Through these Nuernberg Laws, for the first time, the fight against the Jews was taken away from the sphere of purely agitation, that is the kind of agitation from which one could remain aloof, and was transplanted into the soil of State policy. At that time there was a shutter between the German people, for now there was a division which applied even to single families. At that time many human tragedies resulted, tragedies which were obvious to many.
These racial laws could be justified on only one ground; there was only one excuse for them and one explanation. That was the assertion and the thought, now, through this separation of the tw o peoples which is being carried through now, even quite painfully, new, at last, the wild and unbridled agitation will be at an end and in this separation peace will result where before there was only a lack of peace.