DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, may I have your permission to draw your attention at this point to a document, an affidavit of Scharping, Fritsche Exhibit No. 2, which has already been mentioned frequently, and may I draw your attention to Page 7, the end of Page 7, and the beginning of Page 8, in my Document Book No. 2. Then perhaps, if I may, I should like to quote one brief sentence.
I quote: "During the so-called Minister conferences, it was exclusively Fritsche who would contradict Goebbels in political questions." BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Mr. Witness, who was responsible for the definitely erroneous or exaggerated news in the German Press during the Sudeten crisis?
A That was Alfred Berndt, the head of that department. In those days he spent nights sitting ever General Staff maps, Press books and lists of names, and he manufactured atrocity reports from Sudeten Germany. Just then Mr. Fritsche was worried about the developments. He came to me once and he asked me: "What are we drifting into? Aren't we drifting into war? If only we knew what they care wanting at the top and what is behind it all."
Q And then another question on the same subject. Did Goebbels, in connection with any military or political actions, which were carried out or were to be carried out, ever consult previously with Defendant Fritsche?
A Not only not with Mr. Fritsche but with nobody at all. The Minister never had any such consultations.
Q Fritsche states that he had only heard of Dr. Goebbel's participation in the anti-Jewish riots in 1938 much later and that he had heard it by means of a remark made by Dr. Goebbels. That doesn't sound very credible, because after all, Defendant Fritsche was a close associate of Dr. Goebbels. Can you give us an explanation? Dr. Goebbels was the originator. During that famous night Dr. Goebbels was in Berlin. As far as I remember, just before that he had been to see the Fuehrer and he was still in Southern Germany. The conversation which you have just mentioned didn't take place until the middle of the war. It happened at Lancke, one of the apartments of the Minister, on the occasion of an invitation when Mr. Fritsche was also there. At the time someone asked the Minister quite directly about his connection with the atrocities, the outrages of November, 1938.
Thereupon, Dr. Goebbels said that the National Socialist economists had arrived at the conclusion that the elimination of Jewry from Germany's economy could not be carried out further.
Q Mr. Witness -- excuse me. That is enough. We have heard about it already today. Did Fritsche later on -- I believe it is supposed to have been in June, '44. -- talk to you about his general attitude toward the Jewish problem?
A In May or June, '44, I talked to Fritsche in his apartment about the fact that on the day of these outrages he had told me: "Von Schirmeister, can one still go on with this sort of thing as a decent human being? " And then he said to me: "You knew, admittedly, I have always been against the Jews, but only in the sense that some of the Jews were against themselves." And he quoted some Jewish newspapers, the very paper, I think -
Q That is enough, Mr. Witness. Then how did Fritsche's antiSemitic statements in various of his broadcasted speeches happen just the same?
A They had been ordered by the minister. From the English press we hadrecognized that there was a certain anti-Semitic current in Britain which was growing, but a law in England stopped this from appearing in the British Press. Now the minister tried to find a common factor against which our propaganda abroad could, be directed. This common factor was the Jew. now received orders that in Germany, too, he should touch upon this subject in some of his broadcasts.
THE PRESIDENT: How long do you think you will be in concluding the case of the de fendant Fritsche?
DR. FRITZ: I think three-quarters of an hour and no more, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, after that the Tribunal will continue the case of the defendant Bormann until 1:00 o'clock tomorrow.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 29 June 1946 at 1000 hours).
Official Transcript of the International Military 29 June M LJG 1-1
THE PRESIDENT: I will deal with the supplementary applications for documents. defendant von Neurath, and that has been dealt with.
The second was on behalf of the defendant Streicher. That was withdrawn. affidavit of former Fleet Judge Jakobs. That application is granted. von Neurath. These have been withdrawn. Rosenberg, are denied. been dealt with during the presentation of the defense on behalf of von Papen. granted. Goering, are subject to the possibility of agreement being reached upon the question of whether affidavits are to be presented or witnesses called, and therefore that application is postponed.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, before the Tribunal goes on with the business of the day, I should like to inform the Tribunal of the results of my inquiries as to outstanding witnesses and perhaps these could be supplemented by any of the learned counsel who can. your Lordship has just mentioned, of the defendant Goering, dealing with the question of Katyn.
29 June M LJG 1-2 three that the Tribunal allowed to be called for cross examination if desired in respect to the case of the defendant Kaltenbrunner. I have just had a word with Dr. Kaufmann and he says that he will not require the witnesses Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer and Strupp for cross examination. in the case of the defendant Raeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you get to that, Sir David, on the list that I have there was a witness called Strupp for Kaltenbrunner.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, may Lord, there are three, Tiefenbacher, Steinbauer, and Strupp. Dr. Kaufmann tells me he doesn't want these.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Then you were speaking about the defendant Raeder.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, there is the question of Admiral Boehm. Dr. Siemers was going to let the Prosecution see an affidavit and I haven't seen it yet, but, my Lord, I don't anticipate that the Prosecution will require that witness unless the affidavit as in very different form from what I expect. the three for which application was undo by Dr. Fritz yesterday in the present case. The Tribunal is considering that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, that, as far as I can see, is the full extent of the outstanding witness, unless I have missed some.
THEPRESIDENT: Was there an application for witnesses from the defendant Bormann on the 26th of June?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Well, I asked Bergold thismorning. He has only get one witness that he is calling he told me, who unfortunately is not here today.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I am told he has now arrived.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: My Lord, your Lordship's information is later than mine.
THEPRESIDENT: It has only this moment come through. Dr. Gergold wants to call now?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: So Dr. Bergold informed me this morning.
DR. BERGOLD: Only one witness has arrived, your Lordship. But I have to put in several more requests which have not been decided on and I cannot say whether these witnesses will actually be found. The Bormann case is characterized not only by the fact that the defendant cannot be found but almost all the witnesses cannot be found.
At today's session I should like to put a special application before the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment. Will you tell us exactly which witnesses you are referring to? Miss Christians.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kloepfer isthe witness who just arrived in Nurnberg.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, there is then the witnesses Kupfer and Rattenhuber.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Helmut Friedrich and the witness Christians has not been located.
DR. BERGOLD: No, he has not been found.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you wanting to call Miss Christians?
DR. BERGOLD: She has not arrived either. She was at Camp Oberursel and she received leave and she has disappeared.
It seems she has fled -- obviously she has fled.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got your application of 26 June or did you make application on 26 June?
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, I did make application.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom did you ask for then?
DR. BERGOLD: Just a minute, I have to consult my secretary.
SIR. DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Miss Christians and Dr. Helmut Friedrich.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kloepfer and Friedrich.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Yes, and Miss Christians, My Lord.
DR. BERGOLD: On the 26 June I applied for the witnesses Falkenhorst, Rattenhuber and Kempka. may have Dr. Kloepfer instead.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Kloepfer is the only one who has arrived, as I understand it.
DR. BERGOLD: Yes, the only one who has arrived, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: What I think the Tribunal wants to know is how many you want to call now and with reference to the others you had better withdraw them if you cannot find them.
DR. BERGOLD: Very well, Mr. President, I wanted to put an application for postponement. The witness Dr. Kloepfer has just now arrived. Up until this time I have not had a chance to talk with him and I consider it unsuitable to have him testify here for the first time because he has not been prepared, he does not know the document which has been presented by the Prosecution and I myself do not know whether he has knowledge of the things I want to question him about. Therefore, I should like to apply that the examination and presentation of this case Bormann be postponed until Monday so that I shall have the opportunity to talk with him, my only witness, and to discuss the case with him.
Mr. President, I do not even know whether I want to have the witness put on the witness stand for he may not want to make statements that are irrelevant for after all, it is not my fault that he has not been here and I would not have found him even today if it had not been for the very kind assistance of the American Prosecution.
Mr. President, a postponement of my case until Monday at ten would be quite in keeping so that I may prepare my case. been at my disposal. I have not been able to prepare my case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Bergold, you have had many months in which to prepare your case and the Tribunal has put the matter back for you already for a very long time and this witness is now here. You can see him immediately and the Tribunal thinks you ought to go on. You must have known that the case would come on in the same way every other case has come on in its proper place, subject to the license which has been allowed to you to have your case put back to the end and all your applications for witnesses and documents put back to the very latest possible moment and the witness is here and we still have some time to deal with the witnesses for Fritsche and documents.
DR. BERGOLD: Mr. President, it is quite correct I have had time at my disposal but if I do not have tin information andthe witness, I am asking the Tribunal to put themselves in my place, what do many months mean to me during which I cannot do anything and during which my hands were tied? Nobody could tell me where the witness Kloepfer could be found until the very last moment. In fifteen minutes I just cannot discuss the entire case with him andI am just asking for a very small postponement until Monday morning, and in that case just a very few hours would be lost. defendant who is not present.
THEPRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, the only thing you propose to prove by this witness is the alleged fact that the defendant Bormann is dead and any evidence he can give about that. That is what the application says.
DR. BERGOLD: No, Mr. President, that isa mistake. The witness Kloepfer will not testify as to that. He will testify as to the balance of the Indictment, as to the fact whether he is guilty or not and the fact as to the death of Kupfer, Christians and Rattenhuber, these witnesses will testify or can testify as to the death of the defendant.
But this witness can only testify as to the balance of the Indictment and the charges made against my defendant.
THE PRESIDENT : Where is the application for KLOEPFER ? Where is your applications ?
DR. BERGOLD : That is the application put in on 26 May.
THE PRESIDENT : Let me see it. Have you got it there ? Dr. Bergold, do you not have anything else at all in the way of documents or evidence that you can continue with without call this witness KLOEPFER.
DR. BERGOLD : Mt Lord, the things at my disposal are so small and meager and I do not know whether those things apply until after I have talked with the witness for up to this point I have been dealing with suppositions only. I have not been able to receive or obtain any effective data.
MR. DODD : Mr. President, I have an objection to any post-ponement for this case. As the Court has pointed out, Counsel has had months and he has had every cooperation from our office, both for his documents and for his seeking out of his witnesses, and if he would stop talking and go out and talk with his witness, who is here now, I think he might be prepared to go on with his case.
THE PRESIDENT : Dr. Bergold, the Tribunal will go on with the case against the defendant Fritsche now, and in the meantime, you will have an opportunity of seeing this witness Kloepfer, and if after seeing him, you wish to make further application, you may do so, but the Tribunal hopes that if you can ascertain what the nature of his evidence is that you will be able to go on with it. English your application for the witness Kloepfer, and a summary of it is that he was head of Section 3 in the Party Chancellory "and that he can deal with questions relating to constitution of law and elaboration of laws and that he is to testify that the activity of Bormann in the proclamation of laws and ordinances was an entirely subordinate one." That is the only reason why you allege that you want to call him in your application.
DR. BERGOLD : There is the possibility that the witness in actually really knows much more, for he was one of the important co-workers. I formulated and stated my application very gingerly.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, I have said what you can do with reference to Kloepfer and are you still asking to call a witness called Falkenhorst.
DR. BERGOLD : I can only decide on that after I have talked, with the witness Kloepfer, In all probability I shall forego the calling of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT : You heard what I said, Dr. Par gold. You can now see Dr. Kloepfer.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, I only wanted the Tribunal to know that that was the position as to witnesses and when your Lordship asked me, I said that the process of finishing off witnesses might take two days. My Lord, subject to the Katyn witnesses, it might take much shorter than that, as I am at present advised.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes. And when shall we be informed what the position is with reference to the Katyn witnesses, as to whether there is an agreement as to using affidavits or calling witnesses ?
DIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, I will make inquiries and try to let Your Lordship know at the end of the session.
THE PRESIDENT : I take it that we shall not be able to go into that this morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : I do not think so. Apart from that, there are certain outstanding interrogatories which Counsel for the Defense may want to refer the Tribunal to, but that is the only other matter I know. From the point of view of the Prosecution, there may be a few documents which will be put in more or less to clarify points that have arisen during the case, rather than formal evidence and rebuttal. They will be quite small in number and will not take any time.
THE PRESIDENT : Were there any documents on behalf of the defendant von Neurath which have to be dealt with ?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My recollection is that there were one or two interrogatories, but apart from that I do not know of any others.
THE PRESIDENT : Perhaps those matters had better be gene into on Monday morning.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : If your Lordship pleases.
THE PRESIDENT : Well, the Tribunal hopes that Counsel for the defendants understand that the Tribunal will expect them to be prepared to go on with their speeches on behalf of the defendants directly the evidence is finished.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : My Lord, it is to try to give some indication of the time that I ventured to intervene this morning.
THE PRESIDENT : Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE : As I understant it, the proposal is that Professor Jarries will make his general speech first.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I understand the Professor is ready to do that and I thought it would be useful if it were known that that might occur even on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Then, now, Dr. Fritz, perhaps you will continue with your witness. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Witness, yesterday, toward the end of the session, we stopped with the following point dealing with the anti-Semitism expressed by the defendant Fritsche in his radio speeches, and in connection with that point, I have a further question.
According to the statements given by Dr. Goebbels, where were the Jews evacuated to ?
A. Up to the first year of the Russain campaign, Dr. Goebbels in his conferences, over which he presided, repeatedly mentioned the Madagascar plan. Later he changed this and said that a new Jewish state was to be erected in the East, a state to which the Jews were to be taken.
Q. Do you know whether Fritsche, dealing with reports from abroad, dealing with alleged German cruelties and atrocities, not only toward the Jews but toward other peoples as well, whether Fritsche always made inquiries at the TSHA or with other competent authorities or agencies ?
A. Yes. Not only with regard to atrocity reports but all propaganda reports from abroad which were unpleasant to us. He inquired with the officer of Mueller, of the RSHA in Berlin, or sometimes he inquired of the agencies that were directly concerned in these matters.
Q. And what other agencies and offices were there besides the RSHA to which he might have inquired ?
A. First of all, the food office, the Armament Ministry, the OKW it all depended.
Q. Do you know whether in reply to such inquiries a clear and credible denial was given out, or just what results did you achieve ?
A. It was not always a case of denial, not at all. Very frequently we received very clear-cut answers. For example, if it was claimed that there was a strike in Bohemia-Moravia, then the answer was, Yes, in that plant such and such a strike did take place, but always and without exception, a very-clear cut denial came through in all cases of concentration camp atrocities and so forth. Just through this fact, these denials were considered to be absolutely authentic and were given much credence. I should like to emphasize that this was the only possibility we had at our disposal for getting information. These pieces of information were meant, not for the public, but for the Minister, and again and again the answer was No, there is not one word of truth in these reports, and even today I do not know what other way we could have followed for getting information except the one that we did use.
Q. I should-like to interpolate a question here. Can you t estify as to the attitude taken by Fritsche on church questions ?
A. During the war Mr. Fritsche's views coincided with those stated by the Minister. At the beginning of the war, the Minister demanded complete agreement for everything which could have brought about any division of time German people would have been a dividing and disturbing influence. I do not know whether you want me to explain further.
Q. No, I shall turn to another and very important topic. Do you know, witness, what reasons Goebbels gave to his co-workers for the individual military actions taken by Germany ?
A He gave no reasons of his own, ever. He adapted his comments to the reports given out by the Fuehrer.
Fritsche knew in advance that there was a military attack planned, first of all, on Poland, secondly, Belgium and Holland, and, thirdly, Yugoslavia ? and the Corridor was near a decision. Dr. Goebbels Himself, again and again, reassured us, and he himself believed in this, that a war would not result because of this; because, in a completely mistaken view of the attitude of the Western powers, he was convinced that they were only bluffing and that Poland would risk a war without the military support of the Western Powers.
Q How about Belgium and Holland ? Mussolini, had arrived for a visit of state. In the evening there was a stage presentation and afterwards a party was planned for them. During the night I had to call several gentlemen, and in the morning the Minister, in my presence, presented to Mr. Fritsche the two radio broadcasts which were to be transmitted; first, the military reasons were given, and second, the reasons for secret service. Mr. Fritsche didn't even have time to look at these reports, and he had a sore throat and couldn't talk so I had to read the second report, and I myself had not known about this report.
Q How about Yugoslavia ?
A The same thing applies here. In the evening the Minister had dismissed his adjutant; he had given him leave. During the night I had to call these various gentlemen over the phone to get them to assemble, and early in the morning, over the radio, a piece of news was broadcast which up to that period of time had been completely unknown to us.
Q And how about the case of the attack on the Soviet Union ?
A It was even more mad in this case. The Minister, for his own purposes, lied to the chiefs of his departments. In the beginning of May he selected ten out of the ordinary complement of twenty who ordinarily participated in the conferences, and he told these people : " I know that some of you gentlemen think that we are going to fight Russia, and I must tell you today that we are going to fight against England instead, for the invasion is imminent. Please marshal your work accordingly.
You, Dr. Glassmeier, will attend to a new English slogan," and so forth.
This was a pure and simple lie to his own supervisors and leaders of departments. knew of the imminent campaign against Russia ?
A No. In the Propaganda Ministry the following gentlemen knew about the Russian campaign -- and I may say that a letter from Lammers was the key to this whole problem, a letter in which Lammers, in confidence, told the Minister that the Minister intended to make Rosenberg the Eastern Minister. The Minister was to furnish a liaison man, who would be sent from our department to Rosenberg's intended department, and that of course was the key of everything: The people who knew about this were the Minister Kovosky who at that time was the personal expert, Dr. Taubert who was the liaison man who was appointed, I, because by accident I had read this letter, and the leader of the foreign Press, Dr. Boehmer. Dr. Boehmer and this is very important -the day before he was arrested, in the presence of Prince Schamberg Lippert -told me that he received the knowledge of this from Rosenberg's circle. I should like to emphasize that he did not have the information from the personnel of our Ministry. As leader on a parallel to Quitmann, both department chiefs, in ordinary ways, would have been advised. Boehmer did not know this from the Minister; therefore, Fritsche could not have known it in that way either. On the next day, because of this remark which he had made, he was arrested and later on he was killed in action. ing : Did you notice at any time that before important political or military actions were taken by the government or the Party Goebbels used to exchange plans with Defendant Fritsche ?
A That is completely out of the question. That would have been in complete contradiction to the principles adhered to by the Minister. Not only did he not exchange questions of plans but neither did he inform anyone.
Q Now we shall turn to a different pattern of questions. The Prosecution is accusing Defendant Fritsche of the fact that he had influenced the German people along the lines of a master race idea and, along the same line, he incited hate against the peoples of other countries. Did Fritsche at any time ever receive instructions to conduct a propaganda campaign along the lines of a master race theory ?
A Not at all, no. In this connection, you must know that Dr. Goebbels, together with the party dogmatism and might, those were things that Dr.Goebbels couldn't work; those were not things with which you could use methods.
To him the Party was the large reservoir in which many different currents of the people should be united, and this idea of the master race, perhaps because of his own physical defect, he talked about this theory and he rejected it completely. That was nothing with which Dr. Goebbels wanted to concern himself; he couldn't use it. Shall I turn to the question of hate ? You asked me about that also. A propaganda of hate against other peoples would have been quite contrary to the propaganda lines as set out by Dr. Goebbels, for he hoped, and following that hope to the end, that one day he could change from the policy of "against England" and "against America" to the policy of "with England" and "with America". And if you want to do that, or anything like that you can not use hate against these people. He wanted to travel and go with these peoples rather than against them.
Q Against whom was this propaganda to fight ? What was this propaganda to combat ?
A First of all, against systems, for, as Dr. Goebbels made the concept "plutocracy" to be that which the whole world knows today, later on the concept of "Bolsehvism" was taken in from the other side, and in time this policy was directed against some of the men in power; But in that case he couldn't quite see eye to eye with the German Press and had trouble. He was quite indignant about that and in one conference he said : "Gentlemen, if I could put ten Jews in your place, they really would to the job." But later, he deviated from this pattern of attacking personalities such as Churchill. Because of his own counter-propaganda he became very much afraid that these men would become too popular as a result of being attacked by him and, apart from that, he personally didn't even hate Churchill. On the sly, he actually admired him. For example, during the entire war he had a picture of the Duke of Windsor on his desk. During this peiod of time he had a hate against individual men and always a complete hate against systems. very clearly, and above all, remember your oath. Tell me the aim of this propaganda for which Fritsche received instructions and carried through ? Was it to create and arouse unbridled passions which could be parralel to incitement to murder, or what was their purpose ?
A No. The arousing of passions was something that the Minister couldn't use at all in this propaganda, for passions rise and die down again. What the Minister did need was a steady and constant lying, on a constant level, with perseverence even in hard times. He wanted no whipping up to hate and murder; that would have been something that was quite against the German people and neither was it anything that Dr. Goebbels could use. direction of the Propaganda Ministry ?
A. I have to differentiate and discriminate. I do not know whether I should enter into the divergence between Dr. Goebbels and Ribbentrop, for at the beginning the Foreign Office had demanded that the entire propaganda broadcast include specifically propaganda in foreign countries, propaganda of the radio broadcast to foreign countries and propaganda of the foreigners living in Germany -- propaganda directed toward those people -- and that all of these propaganda instruments be unified in his person and in his hands. There were pretty disagreeable differences. Both parties in the long run exploited this divergence for their own purposes.
Q. Witness, please be a little more brief.
A. I can leave this topic, for the difference between these two men is well known. However, I must turn to Russia. In Russia, press and propaganda up to about March of 1944 were subordinate to Mr. Rosenberg. And in this sphere as well, Dr. Goebbels -
THE PRESIDENT: What has this Russian propaganda got to do with the defendant ?
DR. FRITZ: No; the German propaganda in Russian territory, Mr. President was what I wanted to know, and I wanted him to answer with just one sentence or two. He has already said most of it.
THE WITNESS: Up until 1944, Rosenberg -- and that was much to the worry of Dr. Goebbels -- believed that the Russian campaign could have gone on witho propaganda. BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. I have one more question that I should like to put to you. Yesterday, when Dr. Fritzsche was on cross-examination, the prosecution presented several interrogation minutes of General Field Marshal Schoener, for instance records in which the testimony is unanimous to the effect that Fritzsche was the permanent deputy of Goebbels as propaganda minister. Is that correct ?
A. That is nonsense pure and simple; and I cannot see how a statement like that could be made. It is just not true.
DR. FRITZ: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any of the other defendants' counsel want to ask any questions to the Witness ?
(No response)
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution wish to cross-examine ?
GENERAL RUDENKO: Mr. President, the prosecution does not intend to question this witness, but this does not mean that we accept without objection the testimony which has been given here.
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness may retire.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should like to point this out further, and to request that the High Tribunal take judicial notice even of those documents which I do not quote, dealing with both my document books.
In my document book No. 2 you will find another affidavit deposed by Dr. Scharping, a document which I should like to submit to the High Tribunal as Fritzsche Exhibit No. 3, pages 16 to 19. This affidavit deals with the demeanor of the Defendant Fritzsche and the attitude he took against measures which Hitler had planned following the large-scale air attacks on the city of Dresder. I should like to ask the High Tribunal to take judicial notice of the contents of this affidavit, page 16 and those following, Document Book No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz, the Tribunal observes that in Exhibit 3 which you have just presented to us, there is a statement by the person making the affidavit that after the bombing of German cities in the fall of 1944, "Dr. Goebbels stated that there was no longer any objection to handing over crew members of the crashed airplanes to the wrath of the people". ness-box and to question him about that. this matter in your examination of him ?
DR. FRITZ: No. Mr. President, I hoped, and I wanted to say this at the conclusion of my case, that I expected a statement from Feltscher at Berlin. He is in custody up there, but I have not received any reply from him. And I should like to ask to be permitted to submit that when it does arrive.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that another interrogatory or affidavit that you mean?
DR. FRITZ: Yes; it is a statement which deals with the same topic.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FRITZ: And if I may be permitted to add this at this point, Mr. President. I also expected to have a statement from the British radio commentator Clifton Delmar, which, however, has not arrived up until this minute. May I submit that ?
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, you may. But what the Tribunal is concerned with at the moment is that they think it material that they should know -
DR. FRITZ: Yes, I quite understand, Mr. President.
HANS FRITZSCHE, a witness, was recalled and testified further as follows: BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. You are still under oath; you may sit down.
You have read this affidavit ?
A. I cannot remember it.
Q. We did not hear the answer to that.
A. I do not recall this affidavit which was just submitted by my counsel to the High Tribunal. I know that it exists, however.
Q. The statement that the Tribunal wished you to be asked about was this:
"Beginning in the fall of 1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about this frequently during his so-called "Conferences of Ministers" ..."
I want to begin before that :
"The increasing effect of English and American air bombardments on German cities caused Hitler and his more intimate advisors to seek drastic measures of reprisal. Beginning in the fall of 1944, Dr. Goebbels also spoke about this frequently during his so-called "Conferences of Ministers", to which numerous officials and technicians of his Ministry were convened and which, as a rule, I also attended." -- that is, Franz Scharping.
A. Yes.
Q. "On such occasions Dr. Goebbels stated that there was no longer any objection to handing over crew members of crashed planes to the wrath of the people". this Tribunal. Did yon in your propaganda speeches make any references to this subject ?
A. No, never in my propaganda speeches did I ask that the crew members of aircraft which had been shot down be killed. On the other hand, I know that Dr. Goebbels, for reasons of intimidation, or to serve the purpose of intimidation, already in the fall of 1944 had reports sent abroad, just to quote one example, to the effect that an Anglo-Saxon airplane which on Sunday had shot at the people who were on their way to church had been shot down later and that the members of the crew had been lynched by the mob. dly be behind this report, for it is quite improbable that an airplane would be shot down at such a moment.
Dr. Goebbels, as is known, through a circular letter addressed to the Gau Propaganda Offices, asked that reports about such incidents, in case they actually did take place, should be transmitted to him. But to my knowledge he did not receive any factual reports to this effect. That was the period of time in which he wrote an article in the Reich about this subject. But I am sorry, I cannot give you the title of this article at this moment. In any event, this campaign increased and was intensified after, perhaps, January or February, and had died down in the days before the air attack on Dresden. But this campaign intensified itself on the occasion of this incident.
Dr. Goebbels declared in the 11 o'clock conference which has been mentioned quite frequently in this courtroom that in Dresden we were mourning 40.000 killed. At that time it was not known that the actual figure was an essentially higher one. Dr. Goebbels added to this report that there would have to be an end put to this terror in one way or another, and he said that Hitler had arrived at the firm conclusion that the same number of English, American and Russian flyers would be shot in Dresden, with the number to correspond to the number of inhabitants of Dresden who had lost their lives in this air attack. There was an incident that occurred : I jumped up and refused to do this.
Dr. Goebbels broke off the conference. He asked me to come into his room, and there was quite a heated discussion between us.