To begin with the latter part, it is correct that I received figures from the armament industry which gave me great hopes forprogress.
I received, for instance, figures dealing with monthly aircraft production, figures deeding with new and especially effective fighter planes. In the meantime, through direct questioning of Speer himself, I determined that the figures which I received at that time were quite correct at the time and that the airplanes either were used illogically or wrongly, as for instance in the Ardennes offensive, instead of for the protection of Germany herself, the home country, or that they could not actually be used because of a fuel shortage. The first half -is really not relevant. gated by the Soviet Prosecutor here in November on 14 November, 1945. This is document USSR 492. I would like to read into the record only that part of the document which deals with the carrying out of propaganda during precisely this period, I quote:
"In September 1944, I wrote a letter to Dr. Goebbels. In this letter I warned Goebbels that he was carrying out propaganda which was not correct regarding new armaments and that in this way he would provoke vain hopes amongst the German people. This was propaganda which would have been carried out by Dr. Goebbels in order to inspire in the German people hope in a favorable outcome of the war."
Is that correct?
A Only partially. Correct is the fact that Dr. Goebbels more than a year before the use of the first "V" weapons himself conducted propaganda in its behalf. On the other hand, Speer in the meantime had stated, during his testimony here before this Court, and has said himself, that he know and now knows the actual Source of propaganda dealing with "miracle weapons" propaganda which he himself initiated. propaganda wherein you mentioned that with the popularization of a new weapon you hoped to inspire the German people with the hope of a successful resistance.
I will submit to you document USSR 469. You already have it. It is your radio speech of the 1st of July, 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: General, are you going to finish very soon or Should we adjourn now?
GENERAL RUDENKO: I believe we should adjourn now because I will stil l need about a half hour.
(A recess was taken) Q Well, I submit to you Excerpt Number 6 from document 28 June A LJG 18-1 USSR 496.
This is your speech, dated 1 July 1944. I can going to read it into the record:
"We Germans have been very reserved in our reports on the effect of the now weapon. We could afford this reserve, know-ing that sometime or other Britain would break the silence with which she tried at first to gloss over the effect of V-1. We were right about it. Reports from Britain during the last few days, and especially today, prove that the effects of this first of the now armed blows against here are becoming all too obvious. It is beside the point for the British now to complain about a wave of hatred which is supposed to surge from Germany against the British Isles. In the fifth wear of the war, it is useless to talk about feelings although much might be said about them." propaganda you told falsehoods to the German nation and incited it to a senseless resistance? vedly and much more modestly than , for instance, the German press used to do, when I talked about the outcome of the V-1. tion:
"We can only repeat that the V-1 is the weapon for us with which we can break the enemy terror."
Q Very well. Now I should like to remind you, defendant Fritsche of your testimony of 12 September 1945 with regard to the activity of the organization "Wehrwolf". This document is also Exhibit USSR 474, quotation number 5. Have you found the place?
Q I am going to read it:
"At the end of February 1945 State Secretary of the Ministry of Propaganda, Dr. Naumann, submitted to me instructions by Goebbels to work out a plan for the organization of a secret radio service.
Furthermore, Naumann explained that the German 28 June A LJG 18-2 government had taken the decision regarding the members of the National Socialist Party and making them illegal and arranging for the organization which is called 'Wehrwolf'. As Naumann stated, such a radio center will have to direct all the underground organizations of the 'Wehrwolf'." the organization of such a radio center, such as " Wehrwolf". However, it was created, and the direction of the broadcasts was entrusted to the former leader of the Reich Ministry of P ropaganda, Schlesinger.
Is that correct?
A No. Two things have got mixed up here. Firstly, the plan described in the paragraph which you have read for the creation of a Wehrwolf broadcasting station was a plan for a mobile station, and that mobile station was not built. On the other hand, there was--incidentally, during my absence--on 1 April 1945, by direct order from Dr. Goebbels, the so-called "Old German Broadcasting Station ", which was opened as a Wehrwolf station.
Q Very well. I should like to submit to you your own statements on that subject. I should like to submit to you your own utterances on the radio on 7 April 1945. This is the same document. USSR 498, Excerpt Number 7. Have you found the place?
Q You said at the time, in the radio broadcast:
"However, as a result of the superiority of men and material reserves, the enemy has now penetrated deep into German territory, and at this moment he is about to carry out his program of extermination against us."
"Let no one be surprised if this desire of strong hearts to revere "*---*" human rights needs not even a short pause for temporary recovery but that it flares up at once and directly with a surging flame and even becomes active. Let no one be surprised if here and there in newly occupied areas, civilians take part in the fight or even if after the occupation has been 28 June A LJG 18-3 carried out, the fight is continued by people in mufti, That is to say, without preparation, without organization, there has come into being, sprung from the very instinct to live, the phenomenon which today we call the 'Wehrwolf'."What will you tell us about that?
and although the passage is missing, whom I was talking about the right and said that right is a sensitive affair, based upon tradition and ethical knowledge-
Q Excuse me if I interrupt you, defendant. I do not want to ask you to explain in such detail. I just wanted to determine one fact, and that is that you did not speak against it but, on the contrary, incited and spoke for the organization of the Wehrwolf;is that correct?
A. That is absolutely incorrect This is not even propaganda for the Wehrwolf; it os an apology for cases of Wehrwolf activities.
Q. Very well. Let us leave that question. I should like to ask you if you know who the head of the organization Wehrwolf was
A. It has already been stated in this Court Room. At the very head of it was Bormann. Under him there was a Higher SS le ader whose name I have tried in vain to remember during my interrogations in Moscow. I have named one of his associates, however. That was Gunther Dalwin.
Q. Very well. Before putting the last few questions to you, I should like to ask you if it is not a fact that Rosenberg and Streicher had great influence on the German propaganda?
A. That influence was negligible. Official German propaganda was not influenced by Streicher at all, and by Rosenberg to an extent which I could hardly notice.
Q. All right. I have a few questions to put to you yet. You stated here to the High Tribunal that had you known Hitler's decrees regarding the murder of the people, you would never have followed Hitler and gone with him. Did I understand you correctly?
A. You have understood no perfectly correctly.
Q. Now, in other words, I understand you to say that you would have gone against Hitler?
A. It is hard to say what I would have done. Of course, this is a question which I have thought about a great deal new myself.
Q. I should like to ask you if, at the beginning of 1042; as you stated here to the High Tribunal, you recieved information that in the Ukraine, which was at the time occupied by the Germans, in one of the regions, an extermination of the Jews and the Ukrainian intelligentsia was being prepared, simply because of the fact that they were Jews and Ukrainian intelligentsia?
A That is correct.
Q That was in the beginning. In May of 1942 you were a member of the Sixth Army, and in the Sixth Army you learned about the existence of an order to shoot the Soviet Commissars; is that right ?
Q Did you consider that this sanguine order should not be applied ? Is that right ?
Q You knew that this order emanated from Hitler ?
Q That is to say, 1942 you knew that Hitler's order regarding murder existed, and yet you followed him.
A You are comparing two things which are not comparable. There is quite difference between not treating commissars as prisoners of war, and giving order for the killing of five million Jews. in the conduct of the war by the German Army, is that right ? That is, if you did not immediately act against Hitler.
A No; I considered that it was impossible, so I fought against it, not only impassively as others had done, but actively.
Q But you continued to support Hitler ?
Q Here is the last question. During the war, did you ever happen to come accross some questions referring to preparations for biological warfare ?
Q Did you ever hear the name of a certain Major von Passavant ? was he not ?
A No, he was not. He was a radio expert in the organization of the Propaganda Department of the OKW. you. This letter bears your signature, and it is directed to Major von Passavant, of the OKW. This is a short document, and I am going to read it to you.
"From the Leader of Broadcasting, to Major von Passavant, OKW.
"Herr Gustav Otto, Leader of the organization of Reichenberg is submitting a plan to me regarding biological warfare. I am submitting this proposal to you so that you might forward it to the proper organization."
It is signed "Heil Hitler, Fritsche."
Do you remember this document exactly ?
A Of course I do not remember it. At the same time, I want to state that I have no doubt that it is genuine.
Q Just a moment, please. I should like to put the last question in this way : Thus, you were for the planning and the actual undertaking by Germany of biological warfare.
I have finished; thank you. I wish to state that I was by no means in favor of biological warfare, but the situation merely was that there were piles of letters daily, sent by listeners, which were passed on to the department concerned by some official. They were accompanied by brief notes of two or three lines which I received for signature. I did not inform myself of the contents of the letters which accompanied those short notes.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Fritz, do you want to re-examine ? BY DR. FRITZ :
Q Just now, during General Rudenko's cross-examination, an allegation was made about your wireless speech of the 2nd of May 1940, in which you spoke about your journey to Norway. Can you tell me exactly when you went on that trip ? was at the end of April. put to you; that is, after Norway's occupation by the Germans. I am told that the fighting which had caused this damage could only have taken place after you had already completed your journey. Is that true ?
A That is perfecty possible, but I should like to say this. In the extract which the Russian Prosecutor has read, without quoting the beginning, I described precisely what I had seen in clearly defined places; Lilihammer and Kurvers Valley are a few names which I now remember.
To compare these statements now with the statements made by the Norwegian Government regarding the total damage is nothing less than attempt, for example, to compare a liquid measure with a yardstick, or vice versa.
Q I have one other question in this connection. Was this journey of yours carried out before the British landings or afterwards ? I think it was just South of a place called Ottar, in the Kurvers Valley.
DR. FRITS : Mr. President, General Rudenko, during his cross-examination, submitted three interrogation records. One was from Voss, USSR-471; one of Schorner, USSR-472; and one of Stahel, USSR-473. In the meantime I have looked through these three records, and I should like to ask the High Tribunal to compare these three records. I have ascertained that in these three records, originating from three different persons, parts of the answers repeat themselves; and they tally, word for word.
THE PRESIDENT : You aren't getting this from the witness; you are making an argument to us, and you must do that at some other time.
DR. FRITZ: Yes, but I wanted to make an application, Mr. President; I wanted to make an application. If these three records are used for the findings, then I wish to make an application that at least one of these persons who were interrogated should be at my disposal in person for the purpose of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you meaning that you should see, or that we should examine, the whole of those three affidavits, or were you meaning that you wanted one of the people who made the affidavits to come here in order to give evidence and be cross examined ? Which do you mean ?
DR. FRITZ: The latter, Mr. President.
THE WITNESS: All three. I can only ask to have all three called.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will consider you applications.
DR. FRITZ: Apart from this, Mr. President, I do not wish to carry out any further redirect examination. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. There is one thing, defendant. You referred to the Commissar decree, or order, and you spoke of it as though it were an order not to treat Commissars as prisoners of war. That was not the order, was it ? The order was to kill them.
A. The order which I came across at the Sixth Army was an order saying that Commissars who had been captured should be shot.
Q. Yes. That is a very different thing from not being treated as prisoners of war. The answer you gave was that you imagined the Commissar order came from Hitler. But it is a very different thing, an order not to treat Commissars as ordinary prisoners of war and to kill 5,000,000 Jews. That was not a fair comparison at all, was it ?
A. In this case, I must admit that my way of expressing myself with reference to these Commissars was not correct, Mr. President.
Q. There is one other thing I want to ask you. In October 1939, this untruthful statement was published in a German newspaper, about the Athenia. That is right, is it not ?
A. In October, 1939, during the entire month of September and of October. untruthful statements about the Athenia appeared both in the German press as well as on the German radio.
Q. Yes. But on the 23rd of October 1939, a particularly untruthful statement attributing the sinking of the Athenia to Mr. Winston Churchill was made in a German newspaper. You told us about it.
A. Yes.
Q. And you continued to broadcast referring to those alleged facts for some time, did you not ?
A. Yes, of course, because in those days I was under the impression tat they were true.
Q. That is what I wanted to ask you about. You had got a naval liaison officer in your office ?
A. Yes.
Q. What inquiries did you make ?
A. This naval officer was not actually the liaison officer between us and the supreme command of the war navy. He was the liaison officer for the entire armed forces; and in spite of this, I called on his services in connection with naval matters. He was the ran whom I asked, or ordered, repeatedly to inform himself about the state of affairs connected with the investigation of the Athenia case and make his inquiries at the supreme command of the navy.
The answer was always the same. We maintain that no German submarine was near the place of the catastrophe.
Q. And are you saying that that liaison officer of the navy told you that after the 23rd of October, 1939 ?
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Did he continue to tell you that ?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. He may return to the dock.
Yes, dr. Fritz ?
DR. FRITZ: Now, with the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call my only witness, Herr von Schirmeister. lows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Will you state your full name, please ?
A. Moritz von Schirmeister.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me : I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing. (The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Mr. Witness, before beginning your examination, I should like to ask you quite generally to make your answers as brief as possible. culum vitae, so that the Tribunal will know who you are and have it before them.
A. A family of officers and civil servants; three terms of theology; a few years as a banking official, some of them in South America; then editor, until my appointment in Berlin, on the 1st of October, 1931; became a member of the Party; SS Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Allgemeine SS; during the war, a soldier; on the 22nd of September, 1944, became British prisoner of war, and in Great Britain since then.
Q. When I discussed the subject of your examination with you a few days ago, you stated to me that your earlier positive attitude toward National Socialism would not prevent you in anyway from making truthful statements here; is that true ?
A. I have already told you that I had believed in this, that I have sacrificed everything to it, that I have lost everything through it. It was most bitter for me. liberated myself completely. In my last camp in England, I was already permitted to assist in the re-schooling of my comrades, because there I was allowed to edit a camp newspaper. And if I only could, then I would help today to rebuild a democratic Germany.
Q. When did you meet the defendant Fritsche ?
A. On the 1st of July, 1938.
Q. What were you at the time ? Which position were you occupying ?
A. I was an editor in Braunschweig and I was called into the ministry of Propaganda in order to become personal press expert attached to Dr. Goebbels.
Q. Which position did you actually occupy in the Ministry of Propaganda ?
A. Until the 1st of July, 1943, I was the personal press expert of Dr. Goebbels, Then I became personal referendary for Secretary of State Dr. Gutterer, until the 1st of April, 1944, when, for three months, I joined the UFI with him, which was the controlling company of all German phone companies. Then, on the 31st of July, 1944, I went to the front.
Q. Were you there together with Dr. Goebbels daily ?
A. Yes, since the outbreak of the war. Let me describe briefly to you what my activities mainly were.
Q. Yes; please do, briefly.
A. During the war I had to deal with all the news and propaganda material as it arrived, which came from the enemy broadcasting stations. I had to go through it and handle Goebbels' extracts all the time. For Dr. Goebbels these extracts formed the basis for his propaganda instructions which he issued daily in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening I had to present them to the press section and radio section by telephone. So that during the war, unless it was done by my deputies, I visited Dr. Goebbels' apartment, ate my meals with him, slept in his house, accompanied him on journeys, and so on and so forth.
Q. What position did Fritsche occupy at the time ?
A. Fritsche in those days was the deputy chief in the department of the German Press -- Inlandspresse.
Q. Will you please describe the type and significance of Fritsche's position in the Propaganda Ministry and at subsequent times, very briefly ?
A. I was to get acquainted with the work of the German press department. Conditions there were as bad as possible, The chief, Mr. Berndt, was following a mallet policy. He would give orders and yell, and I would sack editors en masse. far as their knowledge and their abilities were concerned. The only steady factor was Fritsche; he was the only expert. He knew the needs and desires of the press. On the one side, he would have to mend the China which Mr. Berndt was continuously smashing, whereas, on the other hand, he was trying to replace inefficient officials in the organization with good ones.
Q. Would it be right to say, therefore, that defendant Fritsche was not appointed because he was an exponent of the party, but because he was an expert?
A: Only as an expert. The extreme Party men in the Ministry didn't attach Q: Was Fritsche a member of those associates of the Ministry who would fre quently consult Goebbels ?A: Theses regular conference hadn't started to take plaze in those days at all und Fritsche wasn't a member of those in any case.
Q: So that he was only consulted when be became a department chief; is that right ?A: As far as such conferences were taking place at all but really only since Q: In which way did Dr. Goebbels confer with his associates ?A: Since the beginning of the war there were daily conferences at 11 A.M., which were presided over by Dr.Goebbels personally and during which he Q: How many people would participate in these 11 o'clock meetings ?A: At the beginning, that is to say, until the beginning of the Russian campaign about twenty people.
Later the circle grow to about fifty people.
Q: Were there discussions during these conferences und arguments and was it mere or loss the handung out of orders that took place ?A: There were nor arguments during such conferences.
First of all, the liaison Dr.Goebbels would give this instructions regarding propaganda, mostly in the Q: Who ran or who was at the head of the conferences when Dr.Goebbels wasn't present ?A: Normally, the Secretary of State.
Q: And who presided when the Secretary of State wasn't there either?
A: Usually Mr.Fritsche and sometimes the head of the foreign press department or the foreign department but mostly Mr .Fritsche.
Q: Did Fritsche give one daily propaganda instructions in cases of that on his own initiative or what was the situation ? A: No; if the Minister wasn't in Berlin, he would still have himsel informed currently about news material coming from abroad.
The he would give to me or one of my representatives, these instructions just as usual during the ordinary conferences and I had to send the instructions through and in Berlin, they were taken down by a stenographer and then handed out or read out during the conference verbatim as the instructions coming from the Minister. Incidentally, the records of the meeting, I want to show that it was particularly described as the minister's instructions. Q: Here Fritsche would use some of these written instructions which you have described, which came from Dr.Goebbels; would Fritsche then come to questions and clear up questions which Goebbels dealt with, by having them up for discussions ? A: When Dr.Goebbels continued to be absent from Berlin, it would happen that the latest news didn't get to him in time. In such cases, Mr.Fritsche would bring things up for discussions, which would be considered and then he would give instructions on his own initiative. That was then put down in writing, the Minister to read it afterward and he either approved or altered it. Q: But, then, surely there weren't only such big conferences with thirty or fifty people present when Goebbels used to give his instructions; there must have been more intimate conferences, too. A: In the course of the meaning, individual department chiefs would certainly see the Minister for the purpose of such conferences, too. Q: Was Fritsche consulted for the purpose of such more intimate conferences ? A: Generally, no. The Minister used the conferences when all departments were represented, to announce the things he had to say for press, radio and newsreel. Those heads of the various departments would then come for individual conferences, whose subjects weren't of any interest to ohters. Q: How often was Mr.Fritsche consulted in comp risen, say, to Secretary of State Pankte, Putterer, and eventualle Dr.Naumann ? A: The Secretaries of State could always be present during these individual conferences and so could the personal referendaries who were always there and Mr.Fritsche was only present during individual conferences on very rare occassions.
Q: What was the position of the twelve department heads of the Ministry of Propaganda, one of whom was the defendant Fritsche ? A: These department heads could be divided up into exports on one side, such as, for instance, the domestic department, Dr.Ott, and definite Party men on the other side as, for instance, Herr Berndt, and officially they would merely have to state such matters as a department head in a Ministry would have to state.
It was generally known that the Minister was using them as instruments and when he didn't need them any more he "chucked" then out and that didn't only apply to the department chiefs. Letme remind you what happened to Secretary of State Putterer who was chased out in an unworthy manner when he had done his job. Q: The prosecution are accusing Fritsche of having used the news service, radio and press in Germany as his instruments and that he had played an important part in placing then into the hands of the so-called conspirators for the purpose of their so-called plans; and was the organization of the press and the National Socialist State in any way dependent on Fritsche;what can you say about that ? had long been completed and constructed.
Apart from that, let me tell you that even Dr. Goebbels cannot be regarded as a member of these conspirators in the sense of this Indictment in so far as he, after all, didn't want to drive us into war but carried out his task in the sense of an unbloody conconquering of countries. Fritsche took over the department of the German press in the winter of 1938 to 1939 ?
Q Was Fritsche independent as the head of that department ?
Q Who was his superior ? Dr. Goebbels as as a dependant department chief, he stood between two fires, because on the other side there was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich, and in the entire German press this split between the two was known. The Reich Press Chief, as secretary of State, was a member of the ministry of Propaganda but in spite of this, he demanded the right to act independently and give orders in his capacity of Reich Press Chief. If, therefore, the Minister and the Reich Press Chief did not agree on a certain point, then this was always handed to the unfortunate chief of the department of the German press, Fritsche. ganization; did he shackle it even further or did he give it more freedom ?
A I have already told you, Mr. Fritsche was the only reel expert of any size who worked in the press department. He knew the needs and the worries of the press.
He know that an editor could only work if you give him a certain amount of freedom and thus on every occasion he fought for releasing the shackles.
He did much more than had became apparent to the outside world because, after all, the Minister would then make a decision in this way or another and the outside world would only know what the Minister wanted.
THE PRESIDENT : Do you think he has answered the question ?
Q Did Dr. Goebbels have any objections to the way the Press worked?
Weren't they severe enough? Please be very brief. individual journalists and with reference to entire newspapers? headed by the Minister as well as on the occasion of private invitations by the Minister, he talked for the Press and for the journalists and he tried to represent their point of view to the Minister. Fritsche acted in the described manner?
A THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, why should he call the names of individual journalists and papers? Isn't it too detailed to get into that?
DR. FRITZ: Very well, but Mr. President, may I, in that case, at least offer an affidavit in connection with this problem, Fritsche Exhibit No. 5. It is in my Document Book No. 2 and you will find it on Page 22. It comes from the chief editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung, Dr. Wendelin Hecht, and I should like to quote it very briefly:
"I am herewith making the following declaration in lieu of oath, for submission to the international Military Tribunal:
"1. It is true that several years prior to a ban against the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' Hans Fritsche also helped, to protect it by withholding copies of the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' from the Fuehrer's headquarters.
"2. In the numerous attacks directed against the 'Frankfurter Zeitung' because of its political attitude, the Defendant Hans Fritsche repeatedly intervened, in favor of a continued publication of the 'Frankfurter Zeitung'. Loutkirch, 6 March 1946. Dr. Wendelin Hecht." BY DR. FRITZ: people in the Minis try of Propaganda ?
AAfter Secretary of State Hancke's departure there"was only one man in the Ministry of propaganda who had any real influence on the Minister. Only one man to whom Dr. Goebbels had some personal relations, and that was his later Secretary of State and personal referendee, Dr. Naumann.
Q Did Fritsche c ome to you frequently to learn details about the Minister's views because the Minister just wouldn't inform Defendant Fritsche himself?
A Very often, because Mr. Fritsche knew that I had many private conversations with the Minister, too, and he always complained that he was suspended in the air, that he was swimming and continually I communicated the Minister's views to him in this matter or that. I did succeed in helping insofar as I could arrange for him to be privately invited by Dr. Goebbels, during which Mr. Fritsche's wishes were openly discussed.
Q Did Goebbels take definite charge of the radio himself? propaganda for Dr. Goebbels which he had. He did not scrutinize any department as carefully as he did the wireless department, the radio department. In meetings which he presided over, the most minute details of the artictic programs were decided upon by him personally.
Q That is enough, Mr. Witness. Was Fritsche really the leading man of German broadcasting, as it appeared to the outside world?
A There again, by no means. The leading man was Dr. Goebbels. Apart from that, here again Fritsche sat between two stools, because there were the demands by the Foreign Office, for instance, with reference to foreign broadcasts.
Q Was Fritsche perhaps too lenient for Dr. Goebbels when he made his broadcasts? by Goebbel's orders because he said his broadcasts were much too weak.
Q Did Goebbels ever praise him and, if so, in what manner?
THE PRESIDENT: We don't have any interest in whether Goebbels praised him. BY DR. FRITZ?
Q Then another question. Has Defendant Fritsche ever contradicted the Minister?
A Mr. Fritsche was one of the few people in the Ministry of Propaganda who would contradict the Minister, both during conferences and in his apartment, and always quietly and decisively and often with quite an effect.