instance, in Berlin they were prohibited from occupying seats on streetcars, the German people took up the cause of the Jews in a demonstrative way, and again and again it happened that Jews were offered seats.
I heard many statements concerning this by Dr. Goebbels, who was quite embittered about the result which came about after the Jews had been marked in such a manner. that the German people did not know about the mass murders of the Jews. assertions which were made and rumors and reports which penetrated to the German people from the outside, were again and again officially denied. Because I do not have the actual proof at hand, I cannot tell you from memory the actual individual cases of denial, but I do remember one case specifically and exactly. That was the moment when the Russians, after they recaptured Karkov, started a legal proceeding in whichfor the first time killing by gas was mentioned.
I ran to Dr. Goebbels with these reports in my hand and I asked him just what was going on here. He stated that he wanted to have the matter investigated, that he was going to discuss this matter withHimmler and with Hitler. The next day he announced a denial to me, this denial was not announced publicly, and the reason for that was that in a German legal proceeding, the things which would have to be cleared would have to be brough forth in a much cleaner way.
Quite specifically, Dr. Goebbels stated to me that the gas vans which had been mentioned in the Russian legal proceeding were a pure figment of the imagination and that there was no proof, in fact, for any statement like that. ban of strictest secrecy. If the German people had learned of those mass murders, certainly they would not have stood behind Hitler any longer. Perhaps they would have sacrificed 5 million for a victory, but never would the German people have wished to bring about victory by the murder of 5 million people.
I should like to state further that this murder decree of Hitler's seems to no the end of every race theory, every race philosophy, every kind of race propaganda, for after this catastrophe, any further representation of the race theory would be equivalent to standing for the introduction of murde, an ideology in whose name 5 million people were murdered is a theory which cannot continue to exist.
Q Now I shall turn to a different topic. You are accused by the Prosecution of having agitated in favor of atrocities, and that the results of your propaganda applied to every phase of conspiracy, including abnormal and inhuman treatment and behavior. In this connection, I shall have to ask you about the pattern of concentration camps.
Did you know that the concentration camps existed? in 1933, and the concentration camps were mentioned later in official communiques.
Q In your opinion at that time, what was the purpose of these camps? were to be taken to those camps who could not be prevented from active work against the now state. It was described in this way, that there were two large parties with a rather incompetent center. One of these large part had assumed thepower. Later, habitual criminals were to be taken into these concentration comps no that they would not revert back into crime. which were established in the course of time?
A Before the war, I had heard about three camps. During the war, I assumed there were five to six, and the picture which was shown here of a large number of camps was quite a surprise for me.
Q Did you know anything about the number of inmates in these camps?
A Nothing definite. In the beginning of the war, foreign reports mentioned millions of inmates. At that time, together with some other journalists, I asked Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich to speak before the legal and foreign press and to declare himself ready to debate and discuss this matter. He did this. According to my recollection, he did not give any absolute figures, but rather he drew a parallel and a comparison to the inmates of the prisons and penitentiaries of former days.
This comparison did not seem to be disturbing. That was in the winter of 1940 or 1941.
Q Didn't you have any doubts as to the accuracy or authenticity of those figures? the concentration camps? Did you speak with anyone who had over been in a concentration camp?
A Yes. Even as early as 1933 or 1934 I spoke with a journalist who for some weeks had been interned in the old concentration camp Oranienburg. He reported that he himself had not been tortured, but that he had seen and heard how others had been beaten and how their fingers had deliberately been squeezed in a door.
Q Did you just receive these reports and do nothing about them?
A Quite the contrary. I made a lot of noise. This journalist -I believe his name was Stolzenberg, as far as I remember -- did not wish to be quoted by name. I wrote three letters, one to Dr. Goebbels, and Dr. Goebbels advised me that he would look into this matter. I wrote a letter to Frick as Minister of the Interior, and one to Goering as Prussian Prime Minister. one told me that an investigation was being carried on. A short period thereafter, I heard that this old camp Oranienburg had been dissolved, that the commandant had been sentenced to death. This was a report given to me by a Mr. von Luetzow, who was the press chief of the then leader of the State Police, Diehls. receive further reports about cruelties and atrocities in concentration camps?
A No. No further reports about mistreatments came to me. On the contrary, however, I frequently inquired of people of the Gestapo or the press section of the Reichsfuehrer SS. All of the individuals whom I asked stated the following, that the methods which were to be decried, had taken place in 1933 or in the beginning of 1934 in the concentration camps, supervised by SA men.
These were members of the SA, who did not have a profession and 2 8 June LJG -M-3-1 whose time was there own and who were ready to serve all day long and among those people the better elements were not very frequently found.
I was further told that the 30th of June had been a housecleaning for these matters. The 30th of June had done sway with those Gauleiters and those SA leaders who had abused their power. Now, they told me, the concentration camps were being guarded by SS guards who were professional guards, administrators by profession and officials dealing with criminal matters who were professionals in that line and other supervisory personnel and I was told that that would be a guarantee against abuses. concentration camps? Niemoeller or Schuschnigg and I inquired after Leipkin, who was the private secretary of Hess, who had been arrested and in each case I received information which was calming and reassuring. were prominent people or important people. Did you not try to speak with other people from concentration camps?
A Yes. In April of 1942 I met a former functionary of the Communist Party, whose name was Reintgen. We had been together as soldiers for six months and therefore he reported quite openly, without keeping anything back from me. on his back. However, he had not been mistreated later on and this was a piece of information which coincided with my observations.
Q Did you yourself visit concentration camps? tration camp. However, frequently in the winter of '44-'45 I was in the administrative building near the camps Oranienburg and Sachsenhausen. Apart from that, I spoke as far as it was possible for me at all, with inmates if I happened to see them on the march or at work.
28 June M LJG 3-2
Q With whom did you speak at Oranienburg? and two times with this man himself. These people told me that the foreign reports regarding cruel treatment were incorrect. They said that the treatment was not only humane but extra-ordinarily good for the inmates after all were valuable laborers. I spoke at length about the working hours and especially did mention this point for at that time a rather silly decree was given out about the lengthening of all working hours. The attitude taken by Gluecks was very reasonable and it was to the effect that a longer period of working time would not necessarily result in more work and therefore a period of time from eight to ten hours a day was maintained. Destruction through work he did not mention and that is something about which I heard here for the first time. inmates directly? quite naturally showed a deep mistrust but when I put factual questions, on the whole, I received factual replies and to summarize these briefly, the gist of these replies was always that there arrest was unjust; that their food was really better than in prison and frequently I heard this sentence -- "Well, anyway we are not soldiers here" -- and the weapons used by the guards were only rifles or revolvers. I saw no instruments for beating. and more distrustful, especially when you received the radio reports from abroad? terday. In April of 1945 reports came in from English members of Parliament regarding the Buchenwald case but this case is so very recent in the course of time that for brevity's sake I do not need to describe the incidents and happenings that occurred 28 June M LJG 3-3 there.
and mistreatment of the worst sort did take place in concentration camps? course of my imprisonment I heard the first reliable reports about those things. Only a part of these terrible conditions which existed can be explained through the stoppage of traffic and communication at the end of the war. The balance is more than enough. Obviously, the decree for the secret murder of masses of poeple had brutalized these people who were charged with the execution of this decree to such a terrible extent.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not know whether this explanation has any evidential value for us and we have heard all about this matter already. He has given is his explanation as to why lie says he did not know.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have but two more questions I should like to put to the defendant. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Mr. Fritsche, it has been said here in this Court that conditions in concentration camps were generally known to the German people. Will you give us your opinion and your attitude as a journatlist? Give your attitude which you can justify?
THE PRESIDENT: Has he not given us that already?
DR. FRITZ: No, I beg your pardon, Mr. President. He mentioned something to that effect when he dealt with the mistreatment and destruction of Jews. He touched on that topic as to the extermination of Jews. On that occasion I had asked him-
THE PRESIDENT: Well you are asking him what his opinion as a journalist was. I do not see that that has any importance to us.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should be duly grateful if I might ask the question, as this is my next to the last question, and if you would permit me to do so. I expect an answer from the defendant, an answer which would assist the Tribunal in arriving at a judgement.
THE PRESIDENT: What will the answer be about?
DR. FRTIZ: The defendant, Fritsche, would like to make a few statements such as statements made by Dr. Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may ask the question. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Did you understand the question?
A. I believe a confusion has arisen, since we do not wish to quote Dr. Goebbels in this connection but rather we want to quote him in relation to our last series of questions and this last group seems more important to me than one question you have just put to me now.
Q. In any event, I should like you to give me a brief answer to my question. Shat I repeat the question?
A. Thank you, no. to the statements that I made about murders; that there were many, many rumors but these rumors were denied. Without doubt there was an iron ring of silence about these terrible happenings. The observation which I made, and which is important, is that in the RSHA and some of its branches, there must have been groups who worked systematically with the end in view of concealing these atrocities and who issued quieting reassurances and who issued denials and these statements were given out to those groups who represented the public.
Q Now I should like to put my last and summarizing 28 June M : LJG 4-1 question:
In your interrogation by me you have made statements the statements that you made long ago in your radio broadcasts and so forth. Can you briefly tell us the date and the reason for your change of opinion?
A I ask for permission to do this quite accurately. The first station on this way of realization and the first thought in this process was not the German defeat, for right or wrong is independent of victory or defeat. The fact was that Hitler tried to use this defeat for the self-destruction of the German people, as Speer has testified and confirmed, in a most terrible way, and as I could observe in the last phase of the conflict in Berlin when, under the pretense of a false hope, fifteen-yearold, fourteen-year-old and thirteen-year-old boys were equipped for war with hand firearms and called into battle, boys who perhaps might have been the hope for the period of reconstruction. Hitler fled into death, and he left the decree and the order to keep on fighting. He also left the official report that he bad died in battle. statement, on 2 May 1945, was the publication of the fact of this suicide, for I wanted to kill a Hitler legend in the bud. name was Sforner, that he had been arrested by the Gestapo, that he had been tortured in order to get a confession from him and that before his eyes his wife had been beaten. That was point number two which made me change. known General Wiedermeier, who proved to me that the reasons given by Hitler for the attack on Russia had been wrong, at least in one important part. After he had talked with the interpreter, he could tell me that in the decisive discussion of Molotov and Ribbentrop in 1941, Molotov had not put any new demands in this decisive discussion but that, rather, he wanted the 28 June M LJG 4-2 assurances which had been given in 1939 to be put into effect.
A part of the reasons given was that our attack on Russia was to anticipate a Russian attack. Therefore, a part of the reasons was lacking. the millions of Jews. I have already talked a out this matter. statement which Dr. Goebbels made in my presence on Saturday, 21 April 1945. while he was excited, Dr. Goebbels, mentioning the last, decisive breakthrough of the Russians at Berlin, said, "After all, the German people did not want things any different. The German people decided in the referendum or plebiscite on the leaving of the League of Nati ons, and in that step they decided by a great majority against a policy of surrender and chose, instead, a policy of courage and honor," and Dr. Goebbels concluded, " In this way, the German people itself chose the war which it has now lost."
These were the last words which I heard spoken by Dr. Goebbels and these words are untrue. I should like to state on my oath that never before had Dr. Goebbels given such a tremendous significance to that plebiscite.
Never had he given it that interpretation, that meaning and sense.
The exact opposite had been true. The German people, on the DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have no further questions that I THE PRESIDENT:
Does any other Defense Counsel want to ask any questions?
BY DR. STAHMER: (Counsel for defendant Goering )
Q Mr. Witness, did you learn about these things and ascertain that authorities?
A No. At that time I did not learn of these things. However, here these wild-cat concentration camps?
A I can give you a very precise answer to that question. These Strasse.
To what category that camp belonged, I do not know. These abuses an investigation -- a promise which was kept.
Of course, on that occasion, DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Counsel for defendant von Papen): was prohibited. Is it correct to say that from that period of time onward, any statement on the part of von Papen was granted only with the approval of the Propaganda Ministry, approval given in advance before the speech or statement could be published? speech was, as I remember it distinctly, caused by the later Ministerialdirektor Berndt. This man called the attention of Dr. Goebbels to the speech, and, with respect to any other statement made by Papen, the principle was effective that not even the Propaganda Ministry would have the right to give them out, but, rather, that they had to be transmitted either to the Minister in question or to the Fuehrer. von Papen for quite some time and that you learned to know him when you visited Turkey.
Just when did you visit Turkey?
Q What was the purpose of your visit? on the 30th of January.
Q Did Mr. von Papen have anything to do with this speech and with this festivity?
A No, less than nothing. I received an official request from Berlin to see to it that Mr. von Papen would not depart before the celebration of the 30th of January, as he was wont to do. To the contrary, I did not try to persuade Mr. von Papen, and in time he left his office in order to go ski-ing.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is all. BY DR. KLEFISCH (Counsel for the SA) at the end of the year 1933 and at the beginning of the year 1934 SA men, without professions, were guarding certain concentration camps and that certain abuses were to be traced back to that fact. I have but one question, who reported that to you? who was the author of that report? whose name was Gerhard Radke.
DR. KLEFISCH: Thank you very much. BY DR. SAUTER (Counsel for defendant Funk): was not concerned with propaganda in the Propaganda Ministry, but that, in the main, he was concerned with organizational matters rather than propaganda matters. Now I should like to ask you to answer several questions regarding the activities of the defendant Funk; that is, his activities in the Propaganda Ministry, of course. and that was a state institution. How long did this press department exist, and what became of it?
A It existed, for quite some time. Up until March of 1933 it was a branch of the Foreign Office. From that time onward it became a branch of the Propaganda Ministry, and from that time on it had a dual mission to carry on, first of all to be the press department of this Ministry, and secondly, to be a press department for the Reich Government and function as such. from the incorporation of the Press Department into the Propaganda ministry -who was the Chief of this Press Department and, for all practical purposes, was the chief of the press system? Was that Funk or was it someone else. Ministerial Director Berndt. This Press Department was then partitioned into three sections: German press -knowing whether the chief of this department was the defendant Funk, or whether it is correct to say that he had nothing to do with these matters. work was concerned he had no connection with that. That came from Dr. Goebbels to Hancke, and to Jancke.
Q And later to Berndt?
Q Witness, I have another question. Who had the management of then press policy in the Propaganda Ministry? In this case I am referring to the State organ. Did the defendant Funk have anything to say in this connection, or just who was it? Who directed the press policy?
AAt that time Dr. Goebbels himself exercised that function. Later on it was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich.
or at least he had the title of State Secretary. Now, looking at this matter rather generally, I would be interested in knowing this. Did he, in fact, have the position of a State Secretary and exercise authority as such, or was the function of State Secretary, who was the regular deputy of the Minister -was that the fraction of another official? the prestige and the salary of a State Secretary, but the practical work was distributed a little differently. I have already mentioned that.
Q Just how was it handled? as they applied to the gigantic cultural concern which was being developed at that time; whereas the actual policy was set up by Dr. Goebbels with the chief of his ministerial office, Hancke, who was the successor of Funk as State Secretary.
Do you know how Minister Dr. Goebbels, in November of 1938, or later, made statements about the Jewish pogroms of the 9th of November, 1938, and how he made statements referring to Funk?
A Much later, Dr. Goebbels stated in my presence that one, on occasion, would just have to be radical. At that time,when Funk had constantly stated that the Jews could not be eliminated from economic life, he, Dr. Goebbels, had to admonish Mr. Funk, that there were things for which he was responsible in the riots of the 8th of November. Jewish action, for which Dr. Goebbels was responsible was instigated with the specific purpose of discrediting Dr. Funk and confronting him with a fait accompli? Did he state anything like that?
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions, Mr. President. BY DR. SIEMERS (Counsel for the defendant Raeder):
Q Mr. Fritsche, in this Court we have heard what grave accusations are made against the defendant Raeder because of an article in the newspaper Der Voelkischer Beobachter. The article I refer to is "Churchill Sinks the Athenia", which was published on the 23rd of October, 1939.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, this is document 3260-PS, equal to GB-218.
Q (Continuing): As far as the case Athenia is concerned, I should like to put a few questions to you.
Mr. Fritsche, when did the Propaganda Ministry receive the report about the torpedoing of the Athenia, and in what way? Through what channels did you receive this report? received this report by wireless; that is, we listened in to a foreign broadcast. Athenia, is that right? Staff in order to learn the details of this matter? officer from the Navy Staff in my office, for censorship purposes. what did you learn? just mentioned -- that was Kapitaenleutnant Hahn. Then he telephoned, and in all probability I phoned too, to the OKM, the High Command of the Navy. As far as I recall, I spoke to Korvettenkapitaen Wolf.
Q What did he tell you? What did Korvettenkapitaen Wolf tell you? area in question.
Q I should like to remind you that the Athenia was sunk on the 4th of September, 1939.
Navy had stated that it was not a German U-boat which had sunk the ship?
Q Mr. Fritsche, how did it happen that about six to seven weeks later the article "Churchill Sinks the Athenia" appeared, which was published on the 23rd of October, 1939? What are the antecedents? Shall I show you the article?
A Thank you, no. I remember this incident especially well, as I have checked my memory about it since this case was mentioned again for the first time here in the Court. way of directions which covered all details, and that the demand to write this article came directly from Hitler. The order to write thearticle went through two different channels; First, through a telephone call by the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich; and second, through a telephone call by Dr. Goebbels or one of his delegates--I am not able to tell you just who it was, whetherit was Goebbels or one of his delegates. This order was to be transmitted to Der Voelkischer Beobachter. details. when I told one of my co-workers to inform the Voelkischer Beobachter, he came back to me with the report that that would not be necessary because the Voelkischer Beobachter had already heard the necessary details directly.
Q When was this order given by Hitler, and, respectively, Goebbels? with this article? Raeder about this article, or did you advise him of the order given by Hitler in this direction? at all of the article, which originated in the manner that I have just described to you.
anyone in the High Command of the Navy, or with Grand Admiral Raeder about this case?
Q Mr. Fritsche, is it correct to say that in September of 1939 the paper "The Times" claimed that in Czechoslovakia, through German hands, ten thousand Czechs had been murdered at Prague, including the Lord Mayor? matter was mentioned in the News Chronicle.
Q What did the Propaganda Ministry undertake to do thereupon?
A German and foreign journalists were taken to Prague. If I am not mistaken, one of the foreign journalists who went along to Prague on that trip, as far as I can recall, is present in this courtroom.
Q What did these foreign journalists find? What did they find out? had been killed; they traveled about the country, and they reported accordingly. this report was shown to be quite false. However, I must add that since Monday of this week, since the testimony given by Mr. von Neurath, it has become quite clear to me that in the background, in the shade of this great and effective denial, an action of arrests was being carried out in Czechoslovakia. In order to clarify this matter, I should add this. There is something, dealing with -
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): How does this affect Raeder?
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I believe that in a certain way it is a parallel case to the article in the Voelkischer Beobachter, which the prosecution is stressing for reasons not quite clear to me.
THE PRESIDENT: The tribunal thinks the evidence is incompe-
28 June M LJG 5-1d tent. BY DR. SIEMERS:
Q Mr. Feitsche, do you know what Dr. Goebbels attitude was to Grand Admiral Raeder? Grand Admiral Raeder it could be seen that it was an adverse attitude, it was a repudiating attitude. He gave as his reason, on numerous occasions, that Raeder was adverse to the Party and the Party's wishes. He based this attitude on the positive position which Raeder took in Church matters, and the protection which he accorded Navy clergymen who were subject to attacks on the part of the Party.
DR. SIEMERS: Mr. President, I have no further questions. BY DR. HORN (counsel for defendant von Ribbentrop): present which took place between Molotov and Ribbentrop. Just where did you got your information?
A There is a mistake contained in your question. I did not say that General Niedermeier participated in this discussion. What I did say was this, and I should like to elaborate a little bit on this point. who, for weeks or months, just before that time, had been in another cell, with the interpreter who had the task of interpreting the discussion of Molotov and Ribbentrop. interpreter?
Q I have one more question. After the last discussion on the 30th of October, 1939, between the British Ambassador, Sir Neville Henderson, and the then Foreign Minister von Ribbontrop, in which the basis for negotiations with Poland were made public, those conditions were published the next day in the Daily Telegraph, and allegedly this issue of the paper was to have been recalled.
What do you knew about this incident?
28 June M LJG 5-2d has found its way into your question. On the following morning of the day in question, the Daily Telegraph did not publish the conditions or the note, but, on the other hand, it brought forth a report about the fact that during the preceding night the British Government had been in consultation with the Germans about conditions for Poland, conditions which had been transmitted to them by their British Ambassador. Therefore, it could be seen from this article--at any rate, it could not be interpreted in any other way--that these conditions were known in London.
DR. HORN: Thank you very much. BY DR. THOMA (Counsel for the defendant Rosenberg):
Q Mr. Fritsche, you stated yesterday that the Voelkischer Beobachter had direct connections with the Fuehrer and with their Fuehrer's headquarters, and that was applicable during the time of the war. Whom did you refer to in the Voelkischer Beobachter when you said they had connections with the Fuehrer and their Fuehrer's headquarters during the war?