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."
And that is what the situation actually was like. Do you admit that your speech on the 22nd of April, 1940, was the usual lies?
A. No, I do not admit that, but I am asserting, on the contrary, that you, Mr. Prosecutor, in submitting this extract, are not taking into consideration the fact that I, in my introduction, reported to the effect that I wanted to describe those things that I had seen myself, namely, a journey into the Goldbrauns Valley -- a journey, as I am just recalling, that went almost up to Atta. It is not contrary to the presentation I made if, according to the conclusions drawn by the Norwegian government, on the whole, in this action this loss and damage actually did occur.
Q. I believe that the Norwegian people and the Norwegian government has sufficiently experienced the weight of the German occupation and the government report actually states facts and not the sort of fonts which you stated in your propaganda. This document is being submitted to the Tribunal and they will appreciate it. I have a few questions to put to you in connection with a fact which has already been dealt with in detail here. It is the case "Athenia". I will not question you in detail on this matter as it has already been ascertained with sufficient accuracy, but will you admit now that special propaganda slanderingly and falsely informed the public opinion of the "Athenia' case?
A. whether this was done by the Fascist propaganda in Italy, that I don't know. The National Socialist propaganda, however, did do it and they did it in good faith, as I have described at length.
Q. I say that now facts have been ascertained here. Do you agree that this speech was a slanderous speech or do you still deny it?
A. No, I have already admitted that and I showed, in detail, how these statements were made.
Q. Very well. I am only interested in this matter as to the personal part you played in it. Why did you so actively deal with this matter and why were you the first man to spread this slander?
A. I do not believe that I brought this matter before the public and was the first one to do so. However, the fact was and is that I spoke very frequently about the case of the "Athenia".
and I spoke on the basis of official reports which I believed 28 June A LJG 15-1a completely.
I spoke about this case because I just happened to be the one who, at the beginning of the war, spoke over the radio in the evenings. "Athenia" appeared in the "Voelkischer Beobachter" in October, 1939?
Q Very well. Tehn I will remind you that you dealt with the "Athenia" as early as September, 1959; is that right? in the "Voelkischer Beobachter"? assertions?
Q Very well. I will only put one other question to you. Will you not deny that in 1940 you still spread this propaganda? I will report the question. I ask you, you will not deny that even in 1940 you continued to propagate this version? it likes to repeat good and effective things frequently and for a long period of time. I have stated already that only in December of 1945, here in the prison, I heard from Grand Admiral Raeder that it actually was a German U-Boat that had sunk the "Athenia".
Q Very well. I will pass on to a group of questions regarding your participation in the carrying out of propaganda connected with the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union. You assert that you had no knowledge of the preparation of aggression against the Soviet Union until at 5:00 o'clock on the morning of the 22nd of June, 1941 -- that is to say, when the German troops had already entered Soviet territory -- you were called by Ribbentrop to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to a P ress conference.
Did I correctly understand your testi-
28 June A LJG 15-2a mony?
A No. Several hours before that, thus is on the evening of the preceding day, Dr. Goebbels had called some of the division chiefs of the Ministry to his house at Wannsee, and on that occasion told them about this fact and prohibited them from leaving and from telephoning. That was the first actual knowledge that I had of this fact.
Q Very well. But you chain that you had knowledge of the aims of Germany with regard to the Soviet Union in 1942, according to your own observations; is that right?
A I do not exactly know what you mean by that. I testified this morning, and tried to clarify the point, that a doubt as to the validity of the reasons given by official German sources did not come to no until I was a prisoner. That is a thing that I set forth very clearly this morning. In interrogations carried on in Moscow as well, I emphasized the fact that after the war against the Soviet Union had broken out for quite a period of time preceding the 22nd of June preparations of all kinds, of necessity, would have had to have been taken. speech, a document which you confirm in full. It is No. 3469 PS. In Paragraph 42 we read: " The Beginning of 1942 I was a soldier on the Eastern front. I saw that large preparations had been made beforehand for the occupation and administration of territories extending as far as the Crimea."
"On the basis of my personal observations, I came to the conclusion that the plans regarding war against the Soviet Union had been prepared a long time before the actual outbreak of the war."
Is this statement right? this matter. with the carrying out of propaganda, in view of the preparation of war and actual attack against the Soviet Union. I am referring to the minutes of a conference held by Hitler dated the 16t h of July 1941.
GENERAL RUDENKO: This document, Mr. President, is No. L-221 and has already been submitted.
Q (Continuing): This document will be handed to you and I will quote two paragraphs on the first page.
" Now, it is essential that we do not publicize our aims before the world. There is actually no need for that. But by no means should we render our task more difficult by making superfluous declarations. Similar declarations are superfluous because we can do everything wherever we have power, and what is beyond our power we will not be able to do anyway.
"Further, what we tell the world about our motives ought to be conditioned by tactical reasons. We must act here in exactly the same way as we did in the case of Norway, Denmark, Holland, and Belgium. In those cases, too, we did not publish our aims and we will be as sensible in the future and will continue in the same way."
Did you have any knowledge of similar ideas of Hitler? statements and directives were submitted in this courtroom was the reason, as I have said, that I considered some of the premises and some of the bases of our propaganda to be shaken.
Q Very well. You did, therefore, not have any knowledge either of the instructions regarding the carrying out of propaganda in the case Barbarossa issued by the OKW and signed by the defendant Jodl?
Barbarossa as such was not a concept until I arrived here.
GENERALRUDENKO: Mr. President, this document is No. C-26 and has already been submitted to the Tribunal. I will deal with it only in connection with the matter of propaganda. It is 477 in your document book, Mr. President, C-26. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q I will quote one excerpt, Defendant. These instructions say:
"For the moment one should not carry out propaganda directed towards the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. In various parts of the Soviet Union, propaganda must use the language which is the most current. This does not mean that some propaganda text should be interpreted as an intention of dismembering the Soviet Union."
Were you acquainted with those directives? you have just read. which the propaganda was carried out.
A No. As far as I could observe, the propaganda which was carried on in the Soviet Union had just the reverse tendency. It tried to educate the various nationalities for independence, such as the Ukraine, White Russia, the Baltics, and so forth.
Q Very well. I would like to ask you now: When did you meet Defendant Rosenberg for the first time, and when did you get information concerning the tasks of German propaganda in the East?
A I doubt whether before this trial I ever spoke with Mr. Rosenberg, but I do believe that I have met him socially. However, I never had an official conversation with him in my entire life.
Q Very well, You will be handed Document No. 1039-PS. This is a report of Rosenberg regarding the preparatory work concerning matters connected with the territory of Eastern Europe. This document has already been submitted to defendant Rosenberg and he did not deny it but confirmed it.
I would like you to turn to the second quotation which is marked. In order to shorten this cross examination, I will not read the first quotation, In this report, we read:
"Aside from these negotiations, I received the responsible deputies of the entire propaganda, namely Ministerial Director Fritsche, Ambassador Schmidt, Reich Superintendent of Broadcasting Glasmeier, Dr. Grothe OKW, and others.
Without going into details of political objectives, I instructed the above-named persons in confidence about the necessary attitude, with the request to tone down the whole terminology of the press, without issuing any statements.
"The works for substantial coverage of the Eastern question prepared long ago appeared in my office, which I turned over to the propaganda deputies". in 1941, before the attack against the Soviet Union?
A No. I do not recall having been received by Rosenberg at any time. In no case did I over receive from Rosenberg or from one of his co-workers a report before the 22nd of June about the planned attack on the Soviet Union. that a co-worker of Rosenberg's frequently appeared before me or my co-workers, and in time I will recall his name too. The leader of his press group before that was Major Kranz. This man appeared before me and my co-workers frequently and transmitted the wishes of Rosenberg pertaining to press propaganda. But in no case did we deal with this question before the 22nd of June. are concerned, is not correct?
A Untrue would be putting it too strongly in this case. It may be that this entire bit of informing which he talks about may refer to a later period of time. I am not judge of that for I did not read the entire document. It may apply as well that Rosenberg, in this report, wasn't exactly accurate when he dealt with the receiving of the responsible members of propaganda.
Q Very well. In connection with this, I would like to put two questions to you. First of all, I would like to refer to the written testimony of Hans Voss, whichis Document 471, and you are inpossession of it. It is excerpt No. 3 of Document USSR-471. Have you found it?
Q I quote: This is what Hans Voss testified:
"After the defeat of the German troops at Stalingrad, and withthe beginning of the general Soviet offensive on the Eastern Front, Goebbels and Fritsche took great pains to organize German propaganda in such a manner as to effectively aid Hitler in rectifying the position at the front. This propaganda was based on the hope that the Germans would be able to hold their own as long as possible, The Germans were intimidated about the stories of the Russian soldiers.
"With this aim inmind, libelous statements were spread of the alleged brutalities of the Russian soldiers and the aim of the Soviet Union to annihilate the German nation.
"In the last stages of the war, Goebbels and Fritsche made onelast attempt to serve Hitler and to organize resistance to Soviet troops."
Is this correct?
A It is not only not correct; but it is nonsense.
Q But you referred to it in many cases. All right, I do not intend to enter into polemics with you.
I would like you to refer to your testimony of September 1945. It is the third excerpt of the document. Have you found that part? I will quote your explanations.
A The entire thing is not my statements. Perhaps you can tell me which passage you are referring to Mr. Prosecutor.
Q I mean Excerpt No. 3, which begins with the words, "The military aggression against the Soviet Union..."
Q "The military attack upon the Soviet Union in connection with the treaties signed was prepared by Germany in secret. Therefore, during the period of preparation of war against the Soviet Union, no propaganda was carried out. In this respect, an active anti-Soviet campaign by the organs of German propaganda was only started after the beginning of warfare on the Eastern Front. In this case, one must point out that the main task put by Goebbels before the entire propaganda machinery was to Justify the expansionist policy of Germany against the Soviet Union.
"As leader of the German press and radio, I organized the vast scale campaign of anti-Soviet propaganda, attempting to convince public opinion that the Soviet Union and not Germany was responsible for this war. I must, however, state that there was absolutely no justification for accusing the Soviet Union of preparing military aggression against Germany.
peoples of Europe and the population of Germany of the horrors of Bolshevism, and assorted that only Fascist Germany was the single barrier of the European countries against either American plutocracy and Red imperialism."
Do you admit this? have been worked over, and if I am permitted I should like to give you the various facts, point by point, I shall be brief.
It is correct to say that I stated in Moscow that the war against the Soviet Union had not had any preparation as to propaganda for after all this war came very suddenly and as a surprise.
Furthermore, it is correct to say that after the attack on the Soviet Union, it was the main task of German propaganda to justify the necessity of this attack, and therefore to emphasize again and again that we had only gotten ahead of a Soviet attack on us. Further, it is correct to say and I did say that the next task assigned to propaganda was and is almost the same thing, to show that not Germany but Russia was guilty of this war. argument is omitted, that I and with me millions of Germans believed the official communiques given out by the German government and we believed them for it seemed to usnonsensical and crazy if during a war which ahd not been decided in the west, arbitrarily and voluntarily, we would have risked going into another war in the east at the same time. issued by the "White Book" given out by the Foreign Office was rather meager and it is further correct to say that German propaganda tried to intimimidate Europe because of bolshevism and make them afraid of it. It is further correct that the German propaganda again and again emphasized the fact that Germany was the only bulwark against the Soviet world revolution.
Q Very well. I would now like to draw your attention to excerpt number four of the same document which is in your possession, in connection with propaganda upholding the spirit of resistance in the German people, notwithstanding all evidence of apparent defeat of Germany. I would like to read this very short excerpt from the same document number 474.
"Beginning with 1943 through German radio propaganda I attempted to assert that Germany was in possession of such weapons through which your aims would be crushed. For this I used invented data regarding the work ofthe German war industry which had been given me by the Reich Minister for Armaments and Munitions, Speer." stated.