I am asking you whether this corresponds to reality.
28 June M LJG 9-4
A I shouldn't have expressed it like that, and I think it is a question of taste.
A Just a moment. I shall have to say something else; I shall have to add something.
The expression "nearest fellow fighter of Goebbels" is wrong objectively seen, and " darling" --well, I don't think so.
Q Yes, very well. Let's go further. had wide powers in the Ministry of Propaganda which were entrusted to you.
Q Very well. Thus, enjoying his confidence and having full powers, in your utterances you fully mirrored the demands of the Hitler Government which were made tasks of German propaganda, is that correct? from your testimony of the 12th of September 1945. I am submitting this document as USSR Exhibit 474. I am going to read into the record Extract No. 1.
A May I have the document? Will you please follow after me. It is underlined in red pencil. I am reading:
"During a long time I was one of the leaders of German propaganda."
I skip a few lines and further read :
"I must say that Goebbels valued me as a sure National Socialist and a capable journalist in connection with which in the apparatus of the German propaganda I was one of his trusted people."
Is that correct ?
A Mr. Prosecutor, that is not correct. I know that I have signed this report but at the very moment when I signed this report in Moscow I stated:
"You can do what you like with that record. If you publish it then nobody in Germany will believe it and no intelligent person in other countries will because this report contains language which is not mine." was put to me in that same form and I go on to declare that not a single one of the answers in that record was given by me in that form and I signed it for reasons which I will explain to you in detail if you want me to.
Q You therefore deny these statements ? which you deny, says that Goebbels valued you as a National Socialist and a capable journalist and in the apparatus of German propaganda you were a trustworthy person. This is the essence of the quotation, is that right ? Do you deny this ? Just a minute please. I am going to remind you -admit.
Q Well, them the quotation was correct, was it not ?
Q Then you do corroborate this statement ? entirety. quotation which I just read into the record. You are not going to deny it, you admit it ? contents which you have just summarized again.
Q The sense is not different from the actual quotation but in connection with that I should like to ask you regarding the following, or rather remind you regarding -
THE PRESIDENT : One moment. What is it you are saying, defendant ? Are you saying that you did not sign this document or that you did ?
THE WITNESS : Mr. President, I signed the document, although its contents did not correspond with my own statements.
THE PRESIDENT : Why did you do that ?
THE WITNESS : I wrote that signature after very severe solitary confinement which had lasted for several months and I wrote that signature because one of my fellow prisoners, whom I had one chance to meet, had told me that once every month a court, based merely on outside records and without interrogation, was pronouncing sentences and I hoped that in this manner I would at least achieve being sentenced and thus terminate my confinement. force was used and that I was treated very humanely, even if my detention was very severe. BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
Q Very well. Of course, you never thought, defendant Fritsche, that because of the acts you committed you would be arrested. It is obvious that you would land in a prison and a prison is always a prison. This was just an aside, however.
I should like to ask you about the following. You stated that in 1945 you signed this because of a very strict regime to which you were submitted. here in Nurnberg ?
Q By General Alexandrov ?
I should like to remind you of some of your answers. On 12 November, 1945, questions were put to you and you replied. Do you remember these statements ? You said :
"I was very often cross-examined and I do not know what statements and testimony are in question now."
and you answered him:
"I am fully aware of this document."
You were asked: "I should like you to peruse this document. Do you remember these statements?"
You said. "Of course, there is no doubt about it." and you said: "Of course."
Do you remember this statement which you made in Nurnberg? missing with reference to which I stated again and again, that the record was put before me complete and for the purpose of obtaining my signature. I had twenty or thirty alterations that I designed. Some of them were fulfilled. Those passages are looking, wherein I said in Nurnberg that certain tendencies in my answers in that, protocol were true but that none of them actually do represent my own answers. of 7 January, 1946.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Your Honors, this is Exhibit 3469-PS. It is not in my book of documents as it was submitted by the defendant. I am going to quote from that document, it is a very short document. BY GENERALRUDENKO:
"Once Goebbels tried to coerce me into submitting my texts for perusal. I refused this request and explained that usually I dictated a short resume of my speech immediately before my broadcast and consequently, so to say, improvise my speeches. He said it was all right but on condition that if he would wish it again,I should in the future only speak on specific, given themes." Is that right? that not right? deny it.
Q Very well. Let us proceed.
is to say in your statement of 7 January, 1946, in paragraph 35 there is this sentence and it was written in your own hand, I think. It was in reply to some of the questions put by your counsel. You say:
"I was the only official organ in the ministry in the field of radio communication."
Is that right? Does that correspond to reality? quoted the passage correctly and I have written it.
Q So, it does correspond to actual reality? after Goebbels you occupied the most prominent position?
A No, my previous answer does not contain such a statement. I will admit that I had a most influential position in German radio, of which I was the head. in the entire set-up of propaganda after Dr. Goebbels, I will reply to you Dr. Dietrich, the Secretary of State, or Dr. Naumann, the -
Q Excuse me, just a minute please. I did not say the second place, I said only the most prominent position. Are you going to deny this?
A I have no objection to your use of the word "influential", but it does not change my answer.
Q Very well, "influential position", if you like. That is still stronger. Let us proceed, however. paragraph 15 -- that the task during the entire period from 1933 to 1945 of the Section of the German Press was the supervision of the local press. Over 2,300 German newspapers were to be supervised in that fashion. Furthermore, during the execution of this task given to me by Dr. Goebbels, in accordance with instructions of the Ministry of Propaganda, I was the leader and I conducted it for the entire German Radio."
Is that correct?
A I don't know whether you have quoted the last sentences correctly, but I have certainly fully recognized the first sentences. It is my affidavit 3469-PS. That corresponds word for word with the truth.
QQuite correct. Please tell me this: Did you organize in the section of which you were the head, the section of the German press, the Schnelldienst, the so-called speed service, which was giving provocative material to the German press?
A If you will eliminate the word "provocative" and replace it with the word "propaganda" material, then I will admit it.
Q All right. I think the Tribunal will beable to evaluate this statement. We are not going to argue about this.
Now, the last question from this group of questions: Tell me, your broadcasts on the radio, which were presented with "Hans Fritsche speaks" -were they official and government sponsored?
A I explained this situation to you yesterday. Actually, they were a private work of my own, but the private work, publicly audible , of a Ministerialdirektor of the Ministry of Propaganda and the head of the German radio system would, of course, then be regarded as semi-official, though not fully official, and this fact I had to consider, and I did consider it.
Q All right. Now, I should like again to revert to the testimony of Ferdinand Schorner, which I have already submitted to the Tribunal as USSR 472. I should like to quote paragraph number (2). Do you find it, defendant Fritsche?
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, the Tribunal would like to see the whole of this document, or at any rate would like to see the questions to which these are the answers.
GENERALRUDENKO: Mr. President, this document has been submitted to you in full.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see, you mean that what we have in English are only the parts that have been translated into English?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Yes, that is quite correct. I am going to read into the record Extract Number 2. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q "I am fully aware that Fritsche was the main collaborator of the Ministry of Propaganda and that he was extremely popular in National Socialist circles and amongst the German people. He was widely known, especially for his weekly international political commentaries. I often heard Fritsche's broadcasts in peacetime as well as during the war. His broadcasts were fanatically partial to the Fuehrer."
Do you agree with this evaluation?
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, is the document sworn?
GENERAL RUDENKO: This document was submitted in accordance with the processes which are in use in the Soviet Union.
THE PRESIDENT: where was it taken?
GENERAL RUDENKO: In Moscow.
THE PRESIDENT: Was the man who made the statement, was he free or was he in prison?
GENERAL RUDENKO: He was at the time a prisoner of war.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the man who is alleged to have made the statement sign it?
GENERALRUDENKO: Of course, it was signed by him.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Thank you. THE WITNESS: May I add that it is known to me that in the far corners of German colonies abroad, my radio speeches were, shall we say, the political comments.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Yes, I understand. I should like to put to you anotherdocument which I will ask you to peruse.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Your Honors, I am submitting as Exhibit USSR-471 the testimony of Hans Foss. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q Do you know this name, Vice admiral Hans Foss?
DR. FRITZ: (Counsel for defendant Fritsche) I apologize, Mr. President. Perhaps not too much should be attached to the Schorner record, but at any rate I am unable to ascertain from the document the place where it was taken.
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko says that it was taken at Moscow.
DR. FRITZ: But the record, the protocol itself does not show that, and then I have also noticed that the photostatic copy which I have here does not show the signature. It just says "signed". Later on in the right margin a handwritten signature has been affixed, but I do not know whether this is the common procedure there or what.
THE PRESIDENT: You can see the original and compare it. BY GENERAL RUDENKO: by Hans Foss. Please look at the extract number 1, which is underlined:
"Being wholly faithful to Hitler and the National Socialist Party, Fritsche extended priceless services in spreading National Socialism throughout Germany."
Is that in accordance with reality?
Q In other words, you are in accord with it? that I concur.
Q On the other hand, you do not deny this?
Q Very well. I understands Let us proceed further. I should like to question you regarding your attitude toward the racial theory. Yesterday you explained in detail in this connection to your Defense Counsel, and I am going to put to you only two or three questions, and I should like you to reply briefly.
Did you share this racial theory?
Q All right. In a radio broadcast on 8 February 1940 there was an utterance concerning Poland. This document is USSR Exhibit 496. I am not going to read this whole document into the record because I do not want to propagandize the views contained in it, but I should like you to peruse the document, and I should like to ask you to peruse Extract Number 1, which is contained in this document, and it is underlined in red pencil. This refers to your evaluation of the Polish nation. I should like to simply ask you if that is your own statement. I see an extract of only 20 lines, considering that I have spoken about 1,000 times, as I said yesterday. In that case, you will have to let me have the speech as such so that I can recognize the thoughts which I was talking about at the time.
Q Did you examine this extract from the document? You have a com plete photostat of the document before you. This is a full text of your utterance which took place on 6 February 1940 at 1845 on Radio Station Danzig Sender.
A General, we have twenty lines before us here. They begin with the words, "Considerable effort was necessary to --"
Q That is the document to which I am referring. I am asking you if that is your speech. speech, then I can only confirm to you this: At the time I had seen the official German documents dealing with the atrocities committed against Germans in Poland, and with great disgust, I talked about that on the radio, talked about what I saw in those documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we adjourn now?
DR. THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): I ask you to grant leave for defendant Rosenberg to be absent from the Court this afternoon because I have an important conference to hold with him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours) AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 28 June 1946) BY GENERAL RUDENKO : be handed to you.
They concern the opposition which the German Fascist troops encountered whilst entering upon Soviet territory. This document has already been submitted by the defense.
Will you look at point 7, the last paragraph ? I do not intend to read it.
Q Very well. Do you admit that you used those expressions ?
A Yes, I admit that. I should like to emphasize, whithout quoting, the context with which this statement was made.
Q Very well. I would like to ask you this. When, in your speeches, you call Polish and Russian peoples "under-people", when you insult them, don't you consider that these are expressions of mankind-hating theories ?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to assert that I never accused the Russian people or the Polish people of being inferior.
Q Very well. I do not intend to argue about it, for the documents speak for themselves.
I would now like to turn anew to the statement of Hans Voss. This is document USSR Exhibit 471. Will you pay attention to excerpt number 2 ? It is underlined. It is just a short excerpt, and I will read it :
"Fritsche cleverly influenced the spirits of the Germans persuading them that they, the Germans, were a superior race and therefore must rule other peoples like their slaves."
Does that correspond to the facts ?
A No, it does not agree with the truth; rather, it contradicts the truth on all points.
Q Let's say it contradicts your assertions.
Very well,.I will put another question to you. commandant of the town of Warsaw ?
Q Very well. You will be handed a document -- Mr. President, this is document USSR-473, and it is the testimony of Reiner Stahel, dated 19 September 1941.
I will only read the first excerpt :
"Goebbels and Fritsche took every measure so that the racial theory should be rendered popular amongst the Germans, and to persuade them that the Germans are a superior race, and other peoples, as inferior races, must be subordinated to the German Master Race.
"In order to convince the Germans of this and to compel them to believe in this theory, the Ministry of Propaganda, led by Goebbels and Fritsche, published -- before the war and during the war -- a large number of films, books, papers and other literature in which the authors attempted to prove the superiority of the Germans over other nations.
"One must say that as a result of the activity of Goebbels and Fritsche the racial theory held a rather firm place in the conscience of a large part of the German people. This contributed to the fact that during the war the German soldiers and officers, having assimilated the instructions of the leaders of German propaganda, committed crimes against civilian populations." the propagation of racial theory ?
A. No, I should like to add that the niveau of this state-
ment is much lower than that of the other statements submitted to me. I should like to set forth the fact that of those whose testimony has been set down in this form, only one could be present in person here, so that he could present some of the data and proof upon which he based his statement.
Q. I believe that during the six months that the trial has lasted, you have heard enough testimony. We Will continue.
A. No, I shall have to make this observation. I have not been confronted with any testimony of witnesses dealing with those matter with which we are dealing now.
Q. You, I hope, remember the testimony of the witness Hoess regarding the extermination of millions of persons.
A. (No response).
Q. I say that I hope you remember the testimony of Hoess, the commander of the concentration camp in Auschwitz concerning the extermination of millions of people.
A. I did not forget this testimony, and not for a minute did it leave or escape my memory.
Q. Very well. I do not intent questioning you on this matter. I am passing on to questions connected with the propaganda regarding the preparation for agressive war by Hitlerite Germany. In order to shorten the cross-examination, I shall quote a few of your own statemtns dated 12th of September 1945, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit 474. Please look at the second excerpt. It is underlined.
A. I object to the reading of this quotation, as well as I objected to the submission of the entire minutes as set down. In this case, I base my objection on the testimony that I gave dealing with the origin of this record.
Q. You already gave an explanation to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal will consider your explanation. This document is submitted, and I intend quoting part of the testimony. Please follow me.
"Excerpt No.2: In order to justify the facts of the aggres-
sion, Goebbels gave instructions to conduct a hostile campaign against Austria, particularly the instructions to find old material in the archives, and wanted to publish them in the press. Goebbels stressed that the document published must first of all prove that the Austrian people wish to unite to unite themselves with the German nation, and that the Aistrians adhering to these ideas were persecuted by the Austrian Government. Furthermore, Goebbels said that the German press must show that the Germans living in Austria were being systematically persecuted by the Austrian Government, which is carrying out mass reprisals against them.
"Later, during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Denmark Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway and the Balkan countries. I, following the instructions of Goebbels, organized--"
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, surely it would be better to ask him with reference to one of these paragraph whether he said that, rather than to put to him the whole document at once.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, I have only one paragraph left, and I intended reading it and then putting a question to him.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not objecting to that. I am only suggesting that it would be better if you put to him each paragraph in full, and not put three or four paragraphs all in one question.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Very well, Mr. President; I will do so. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. I ask you, defendant Fritsche, do you admit the excerpt read by me concerning the Anschluss?
A. No. And I must emphasize the fact that my testimony in that extract contains those parts which the interrogating Russian officer added concerning my testimony. The formulation was submitted to me when it was not quite completed, so that I could affix my signature to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you deny in it? Take the first paragraph.
THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I am protesting against everything, specifically the expressions used here. Those were not expressions which I would have ever used. In my interrogations at Moscow, I stated exactly the same thing as I stated here in this Court Room yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, or anything which I may nave set down in my affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Take the first paragraph. The first paragraph has just been read to you -- "in order to justify the facts of the aggression..." Were you asked any question about that, and did you make any answer?
THE WITNESS: Yes, indeed. In interrogations which Were held frequently and hold late at night, I was asked concerning those question, and I answered as follows the part here which was summarized in this question as put down in this paragraph: of the Austrian action I was summoned to Dr. Goebbels. Dr. Goebbels told me that the Austrian government of Schuschnigg had plans of such and such a nature, which plans have been described at length here, and that a government crisis was taking place. He told me further that Seyss-Inquart had taken over the government, that a call for help had come from Austria, and he told me also that the march would take place immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you now telling us what you told the Russian interrogator, or are you telling us what actually happened in Germany at the time of the Anschluss?
THE WITNESS: I am telling those things which I told the interrogating Russian officer, and those are the things exactly as they took place in the propaganda ministry on the day in question.
THE PRESIDENT: You are saying, then, that this first paragraph is entirely made up, are you?
A. No; I would not wish to use the word "invented" or "made up", but I would rather say -- and I beg your permission as set down in this paragraph.
First of all, there is the BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. This means that you have now corroborated what I have
A. No, no, Mr. Prosecutor. There is an essential difference
Q. I understand, from your point of view. But I believe directed against the Austrian government.
This is the main
A. That I have to deny as well, and object to as well.
Q. Do I understand correctly that you deny your personal propaganda?
A. You did not understand me correctly if, by the term "propaganda" in this case, you mean enumerating of those measures
Q. Very well. I should like to read another paragraph of your testimony which says:
"During the occupation by Germany of Czechoslovakia, Belgium, paganda.
In every case I selected those documents from the archives which compromised the governments of these countries and added to the stature of Germany, and attempted in this way to justify this or that actionon the part of Germany".Do you also deny this?
A. Yes, in that from I deny that as well.
Q. But you will not deny also that propaganda was conducted against all the countries enumerated in your testimony?
A. No, no. I would deny the last sentence that you added. I admit the fact of the propaganda. However, in the individual actions, I described my participation in detail in 3469-PS.
Q. very well; I understand. I do not intend questioning you further, as this has been quite adequately explained in your statement dated January 1646, Document 3469-PS, and which, in fact, do not contradict the actual facts. Is that ture?
A. I see an essential contradiction there. But this affidavit, 3469-PS, is completely accurate and true.
Q I would like as a supplement to this, read the testimony of Ferdinand Schorner which is document USSR Exhibit 472 and which has already been submitted to the Tribunal; I mean Extract No.3. He says in this statement, and I read : "The political activity of Fritsche in his function or radio commentator of the State, was subordinated to the main task of National Socialism to begin a world war against democratic countries and to contribute to the victory of German arms in every way.
The principal method of Fritsche which he utilized during many years of his activity, as I later understood, was the conscious cheating of the German people. I speak of that because, during the last years we soldiers felt that very sharply because contrary to the statements of Fritsche, we knew the actual forces on the front and also new the situation. The main guilt of such people as Fritsche is that they did know the actual state of things but after understanding this, basing this on the criminal intentions of the Hitlerite government, they consciously lied to the people or 'threw sand into their yes' to use a German expression." Does this characterization of German propaganda correspond to the truth, defendant Fritsche ? this statement. Mr. Schorner says that the activity of the war commentator, Dr. Dittmar, consisted in the starting of aggressive wars. General Dittmar spoke over the radio for the first time in the winter of 1943 and that is one point I should like to make. The second point I should like to make is the fact that I have never seen Mr. Schorner. I do not know him and I have never spoken to him and I should be very much surprised if he could be in a position to judge whether I deliberately or not deliberately at any time ever said anything that was not true but -- and this is the thing I have to add -- in the last few days of Berlin, I indirectly, through State Secretary, Dr.Naumann, received a report from General Fieldmarshal Schorner and I was instructed to use this report, to make use of it. It was this report that he was in Bohemia with an army which was intact and if he wanted to, for an unlimited period of time, he could hold this territory and he wanted us to have courage in Berlin, that he could even come to our aid. I don't know whether this statement actually was uttered by Schorner but I think it would pay to call General Fieldmarshal Schorner as a witness in this Court in order to ask him what the data and the basis of his judgment was.
Q The fact that you do not know Ferdinand Schorner is not a sufficient contradiction of this testimony, for you have yourself stated before this Tribunal that very many people knew you as an official representative of the government but, of course, you could not know everybody; is that right ?
A If you will permit me, Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to call your attention to something which is illogical. Anyone who didn't know me can very well judge about those things that I said but he is not in a position to judge about those things, whether I made those statements in good faith or in bad faith. I am sure that you can differentiate between these two positions yourself. deny the criminal character of German propaganda.
A Cannot answer yes to the question in the way that you put it. Mr. Prosecutor, this morning I gave you a basis for questions which may be put to me about those things in which I assisted for historical presentation -when I tried to show where pure idealism was concerned and where there were wrong prerequisites; these things are now being confused. the basis of documents which are at our disposal. I would like to ask you : Did you have documents concerning operation Gruen in Czechoslovakia; documents concerning the aggression against Poland, the aggression against Yugoslavia, and propaganda conducted in this respect ?
A The data for the Case "Gruen" those are heard for the first time here but since, again, you are now trying to tie these measures in with propaganda measures, it is very hard for me to keep both of these matters separate. Perhape it will serve your purpose if I answer -- Neither in the case of Czechoslovakia nor in the case of Poland nor in any other case, did I know in advance about German attacks. I knew no more than an hour or two hours before the time they were announced to the German public.
Q Did you say an hour or one hour and a half ? I do recall that in the case of Russia, I had advance knowledge through Dr. Goebbels five or six hours in advance.
Q Very well. You will be handed document USSR Exhibit 493. It is your radio speech connected with the aggression against Poland. This speech was made on the 29th.
of August. I was directed already beforehand to the ex-
planation of the reasons for the German attack on Poland and is dated the 29th of August. I do not intend reading it but the sense of this speech is that on the 29th of August you spoke of a series of unforeseen events which was imminent. Have you acquainted yourself with this document ?
A No, that I don't deny. I should like to refer only to the fact --This was on the 29th of August and you do not deny it. of imminent war with Poland, of the impossibility to prevent this war with Poland; did you believe this personally then ? am not in a position to tell you but I am able to tell you one thing. I did not believe that this was the case of German Guilt. If, in this period of tension, if a war-like conflict would result -- Please, Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to add this.
THE PRESIDENT : General Rudenko, letthe man answer.
THE WITNESS : At that time, it was a matter of great satisfaction to me that in the weeks that followed, in the Soviet press I could determine and find out that Soviet Russia and her government shared the opinion of war guilt, in the opinion of the German government. BY GENERAL RUDENKO : that sense. We will pass on to another question. On the 9th of April 1940, you made a speech concerning the reasons for a possible occupation of Norway. You will now be handed an extract from this speech.
GENERAL RUDENKO : Mr. President, this is document No.496. BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
Q You have that document, defendant Fritsche, It is excerpt No.4.
A No, I don't have it before me.
A. (Continued) Yes, I have found it. It is page 4.
Q. Very well. I will read a short excerpt: "The fact that the German soldiers had to carry out their duty because the English broke Norwegian neutrality did not end in warlike but in peaceful action. No one was injured, not a single house was destroyed; life and daily work continued." This was a lie. Do you admit it or will you deny it?
A. No, that was not a lie, for I had just been in Norway and I had seen these things. Here everything will be quite obvious and clear if your will permit me to read the next sentence, which reads as follows -- the next sentence reads as follows -
Q. Defendant Fritsche, wait a minute -
THE PRESIDENT: General Rudenko, you just let the man explain. He wants to read the next sentence in order to explain this sentence.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Well, all right then. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. Please read it.
A. The next sentence reads as follows: "Even there, and when Norwegian troops gave resistance, instigated by the misled former Norwegian government." and so forth, "the civilian population was hardly touched thereby for the Norwegians fought outside the cities and villages," and so forth.
Q. Very well. Now I will show you a document which is an official report of the Norwegian government, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal by the French prosecution as RF Exhibit 72.
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, in the Document Book this document is wrongly numbered USSR Exhibit 78. It is Document PS 1800 and is submitted by the French prosecution as RF Exhibit 72. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q. Listen, Defendant Fritsche, how correctly you described the situation in Norway; this is how the Norwegian government writes. I quote: "The German attack on Norway on the9th of April, 1940, brought war to Norway for the first time in 126 years. For two months the war was carried on throughout the country, causing destruction to the of 250,000,000 kronen. Further, more than 40,000 houses were damaged or destroyed and civilians were killed."