dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
FRITZSCHE: What I just said becomes even clearer in this quotation, and in this whole speech. I referred once more to the reports just mentioned. I also referred to the descriptions coming from foreign correspondents. I then quite frankly reported Moscow's attitude toward these events and I said, quite honestly, "Radio Moscow says that these atrocities are facts, but it maintains that these atrocities were not committed by Russians but by Germans." ' In view of this attitude of Moscow, I, so to speak, took the public into my confidence. I called upon millions of German soldiers as witnesses; I called upon their mothers and fathers and wives as witnesses. I formally called as witnesses the inhabitants of the occupied territories in which Germans were in power at the time, and in which, as I said, they were subordinated only to the moral laws in their own breasts. Then I drew the conclusion: These German soldiers cannot have committed the atrocities which were described by Berlin and Moscow in the same way. The Prosecution asserted that this attempt to ascribe German atrocities to the Russians was ridiculous. I do not consider it ridiculous; I consider it tragic. It shows clearly, as I understand it, the absolute cleanliness and honesty of the whole German conduct of the war. I still believe today that murder and violence and Sonderkommandos only clung like a foreign body, like a boil to the morally sound body of the German people and their Armed Forces.
DR. FRITZ: Finally, the Prosecution quotes a passage from your speech of 9 October 1941, another quotation from which was brought out elsewhere. Mr. President, this is in the Fritzsche Document Book Number 1; the speech in its full text is on Pages 20 to 25. The quotations of the Prosecution are summed up in a document in the Fritzsche document book of the Prosecution. I think the Tribunal can easily compare it. [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution concludes from this quotation that you had approved of the policy of the Nazi conspirators in their ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories: What have you to say to that?
FRITZSCHE: There is no question of ruthlessness either in the quotation given by the Prosecution or in the rest of the text of the speech of 9 October 1941. I refer to my affidavit 3469-PS, Paragraph 39, a paragraph which the Prosecution very fairly quoted in this connection. In addition, may I once more sum up, very briefly, the sense of this speech. That was the time when German soldiers were stationed from the Black Sea to the Bay of Biscay. I spoke of the possibility of exploiting the resources of this enormous territory. I said, "The possibilities of this continent are so considerable that they can cover any need for war and for peace." I said, in this connection, that a starving-but by blockade, such as was attempted in 1914-18, was now out of the question. I spoke of the possibilities of the organization of Europe which could begin in the midst of the war...
DR. FRITZ: In the midst of war?
FRITZSCHE: . . . in the midst of war, and I meant the organization of European nations with equal rights. It is beyond all doubt that at that time I was not thinking of ruthless exploitation of the occupied territories, but only of winning them over politically and economically after the storms of war had blown by.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I now come to another subject, so perhaps this would be a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. THOMA: I have a request, Mr. President. I would like to have my client excused for the rest of the day because I want to talk to him.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly. [A recess was taken.]
DR. FRITZ: What did you know about the removal of Jews from occupied countries?
FRITZSCHE: I did not know anything of their removal, but I heard that certain individuals were being arrested, Jews and non-Jews.
DR. FRITZ: What did you know about the topic, which we discussed here, of slave labor?
FRITZSCHE: I knew that millions of foreign workers were working in the Reich. I did not consider them slaves, for I saw them daily walking about free on the streets of all the cities.
DR. FRITZ: What did you know about their treatment, about their living conditions, and their wages?
FRITZSCHE: Reports about these things were sent to me or to my co-workers from the office of Sauckel and the German Labor Front. From these reports, among other things, I remember the fact that the foreign workers were given the same treatment as the German workers in every respect. I further recall having heard that the initial inferior treatment accorded to Eastern Workers had been done away with. I received many reports from listeners complaining about the fact that foreign workers were allegedly in better position than German workers; and in this connection, I remember a reference to the fact that the foreign workers were permitted to send home money in the form of foreign exchange. I also talked with foreign workers many times. I did not hear any special complaints. On the other hand, in the Propaganda Ministry, through official channels, I heard a great deal about the care given to foreign workers even along cultural lines. Frequently I was approached by Sauckel or the German Labor Front-I do not remember which it was-with the request to have radio broadcasts sent to one or another group of foreign workers. I was approached also with the request for turning over receiving sets to camps of foreign workers, et cetera.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know that most of them did not come to Germany voluntarily?
FRITZSCHE: That was exactly what I did not know. Here in this proceeding it was mentioned that Sauckel in one meeting or another made a statement about the fact that only a small percentage had come voluntarily. That was unknown to me. I did hear the following complaints: First of all, that extravagant promises were made at the time of recruitment of the foreign workers, which could not be kept afterward. In the interest of my propaganda I had objections raised against that through the propaganda department of my Ministry when I heard about it. Then, I remember having heard complaints from Poland dealing with the fact that employers were "pirating" Polish workers from one another.
DR. FRITZ: Sauckel testified that in this connection he cooperated with the Propaganda Ministry and that he had many discussions with the Propaganda Ministry. Did you participate in such discussions?
FRITZSCHE: No, I did not participate in these conferences. I thought that I met Sauckel here for the first time. He reminded me of our meeting in the spring of 1945 at the home of Dr. Goebbels when some evening gathering took place.
DR. FRITZ: Did you have anything to do with the propaganda used in the recruitment of foreign workers in occupied countries?
FRITZSCHE: No.
DR. FRITZ: What did you have to do with the propaganda which was disseminated in the occupied countries?
FRITZSCHE: This propaganda, as it applied to occupied countries, was not subordinate to me, not even in the branches of the press or radio. This propaganda was under the direction and supervision of the local Reich commissioner, military commander, or governor. However, I did exert influence on this propaganda in the occupied countries on two, three, or four occasions when this propaganda in the occupied countries was contrary to the directives which applied to the Reich. I usually gathered this from the echo abroad. I remember one special case which received general attention. A certain man by the name of Friedrich attacked the Pope over the German radio in Paris. I had this man Friedrich replaced. That was the extent of my influence. Dr. Goebbels, however, exerted much more influence on the propaganda in the occupied countries, especially through his foreign section or his Foreign Press Department or through his liaison officer to the OKW.
DR. FRITZ: Did you not make any radio broadcasts in the occupied countries?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, broadcasts of two types. An example of the first type is as follows: At the time of the occupation, Radio Paris was under German influence. Despite that, I retained the old German broadcast in the French language via Radio Stuttgart. I wanted to have it understood quite specifically that the occupation was an abnormal and a temporary situation, and anything that was taking place during the period of occupation did not have anything to do with that part of, let us say, German-French conversations, which was being carried on by the two mother countries. The second example is as follows: It concerns German broadcasts in the Spanish and Portuguese languages. I had them transmitted through three stations in southern France, for it was easier to receive these transmissions in the Pyrenees peninsula. The basis for my work in this connection was a contract which we had with these stations and the payment of regular charges. Negotiations for this contract were carried out through the Foreign Office.
DR. FRITZ: I shall now turn to a different topic. You are accused of making anti-Semitic statements. Were you anti-Semitic, and in what way did you participate in anti-Semitic propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: I was not anti-Semitic in the idea of a noisy anti-Semitism. The Prosecution has asserted that all defendants-that is, including myself-had shouted, "Germany awake and Judaism shall die." I will state under oath that I never raised this cry or one similar. I was not anti-Semitic in the sense of either the radical theories or methods beginning with Theodor Fritsch to Julius Streicher. The Prosecution has stated that even the Defendant Streicher, the main anti-Jewish agitator of all times, could hardly have excelled Fritzsche when it came to libels against the Jews. I protest against this statement. I do not believe that I deserve any such accusation. Never did I give out any propaganda dealing with ritual murders, cabala, and the so-called secrets of the Elders of Zion. At all times of my life I considered them machinations of a rather primitive agitation. For humanitarian reasons, I regret that I have to make a further statement, but I cannot refrain from making this statement in the interests of truth. My co-workers and I, in the press and on the radio, without exception I would say, rejected Der Sturmer radically. I personally, during a period of 13 years of regular newspaper comments, never quoted this paper. Der Sturmer was not quoted in the German press either. The editors did not belong to the journalists' union and the publisher did not belong to the publishers' organization during my term of office. How things were later on, I do not know. As I have already stated in my affidavit, I tried twice to ban Der Sturmer . However, I did not succeed. Then it was proposed that I censor Der Sturmer . However, I declined the offer. I wanted to prohibit the publishing of Der Sturmer , not just because the mere verbatim reproduction of a page of the newspaper Der Sturmer was the most effective anti-German propaganda which ever existed, but I wanted to ban Der Sturmer simply for reasons of good taste. I wanted to prohibit it as a source of radicalism against which I fought wherever I met it.
FRITZSCHE: The great secret for the sudden increase in the circulation of Der Sturmer after 1933 to half a million, already referred to in this Court, lay in the same cause as the secret of the sudden increase of such organizations as the SA. The Party in 1933 had blocked the influx of new members, and a great many people tried to get in somehow, if not directly with the Party, then with some organization connected with the Party, such as, perhaps, the SA. Or they tried to show sympathy with National Socialist ideas by subscribing to Der Sturmer and displaying it. Therefore, in that sense, I was not anti-Semitic. But I was anti-Semitic in this sense: I wanted a restriction of the predominant influence of Jewry in German politics, economy, and culture, such as was manifested after the first World War. I wanted a restriction based on the ratio of Jews to Germans. I proclaimed publicly this view of mine on occasions, but I did not exploit these views in extensive systematic propaganda. Those anti-Semitic statements with which I am charged by the Prosecution have a different connection. The facts are as follows: After the outbreak of the war I referred frequently to the fact that Jewish emigrants immediately after 1933, were the first ones to emphasize that a war against the National Socialist German State was necessary; for instance, Emil Ludwig or George Bernhard or the Pariser Tagblatt . As far as I recall, this was the only connection in which I made anti-Semitic statements of any kind. I cannot say this without asking to be permitted to emphasize one more point. Only in these proceedings here did I learn that in the autumn of 1939 there was more at stake than just one city and a road through the Corridor; that in truth and in fact, a new partition of Poland had already been prepared at least, and only here in these proceedings did I learn that Hitler had confirmed in a dreadful manner the warnings of the Jews against him by an order to murder them.
FRITZSCHE: If I had known both of these things at that time, then I would have pictured the role of Jewish propaganda before the outbreak of the war quite differently.
DR.FRITZ: Mr. President, in this connection I should like to refer to the document which has already been submitted, Document Number Fritzsche-2, the affidavit by Dr. Scharping, with reference to Pages 9 to 11. This document is found in my Document Book Number 2; however, I do not know whether this document book has been submitted to the High Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it has.
DR.FRITZ: Pages 9 to 11. I refer to the contents of this document. [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution has quoted a passage from the book by Muller, dealing with the Propaganda Ministry. According to this, among other things, it was the task of this Ministry to enlighten the population about the Jewish question. According to the picture drawn by the Prosecution, matters stood as though you were the one charged with the task of this enlightenment; is that correct?
FRITZSCHE: No. The "Jewry" department was a branch of the propaganda department which carried on this so-called active propaganda in opposition to the specialized or administrative departments. I never directed this department of propaganda.
DR. FRITZ: I should like to interpolate a question. The Defendant Streicher, on 29 April, stated that the Propaganda Ministry published a National Socialist Correspondence which was sent to Der Sturmer as well and which contained in each issue several antiSemitic articles. Is that true?
FRITZSCHE: No. The National Socialist Correspondence was not published by the Propaganda Ministry, but by the Reichspressestelle (Reich Press Office) of the NSDAP; however, I did not have the impression that the particular policy followed by Der Sturmer took its character from these articles. On the other hand, Der Sturmer may have published one or the other article which was given out by the ASK.
DR.FRITZ: The Prosecution quoted a passage from a speech which you made over the radio on 18 December 1941. This speech will be found in full in my Document Book Number 1, Pages 26 to 32. In this instance, you said that the fate of Jewry in Europe had been rather unpleasant and that this fate in all probability would stretch over to the New World as well. The Prosecution holds the view that this was a proclamation of further actions in the persecution of Jews. What can you tell us about this?
FRITZSCHE: In this quotation, I discussed the unpleasant fate of Jewry in Europe. According to the things that we know today, this must appear as though I meant the murder of the Jews. But in this connection, I should like to state that at that time I did not know about these murders; therefore I could not have meant it. I did not even mean the evacuation of Jews, for even this was not carried out in Berlin at least until a year or two later. What I meant was simply the elimination of Jews from politics and economic life. The expression "unpleasant" hints at this; otherwise the inoffensiveness of this term could not be explained. And now to the question of why I spoke about the Jews in America in this connection. The sentence quoted by the Prosecution is inextricably connected with a communication preceding it, stating that a Jewish National Council had submitted to President Roosevelt their wish to enter the war. Not even this association of ideas, which is perhaps understandable now, was used by me without good reason. The largest part of the speech in question, perhaps nine-tenths of it, in fact, deals with the investigation commission set up in the United States to investigate the causes of Pearl Harbor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are a lot of pages in this.
DR. FRITZ: The Document Book Number 1, Mr. President, Pages 26 to 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; I wanted to know whether first of all we are on Page 31.
DR. FRITZ: He is referring in his statements which he is making now to the entire contents of the speech, Mr. President. The Prosecution had quoted only the very last paragraph-of this speech. [Turning to the defendant.] Please continue.
FRITZSCHE: In this polemic address I not only suggested investigating whether the guards of the U. S. Navy had been careless but I also advised checking into American politics, as to whether someone might not have been interested in the outbreak of the war. In this connection, I recalled that an investigating committee of the American Senate, 20 years after the first World War, had investigated the causes for entry of the United States in the war in 1917. I said verbatim, "This Senate committee proved that Wilson, when entering the war, knew that he was the victim of a few warmongers." I deplored...
THE PRESIDENT: The investigation committee of the Americans about the entry into the last war? Isn't he going rather far back?
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I believe that the defendant can stop at this point. He only wanted to show that the quotation of the last paragraph cited by the Prosecution in order to incriminate him was torn from its contents. That is the fact he wanted to show, Mr. President. [Turning to the defendant.] The second quotation used by the Prosecution is an excerpt from your radio speech of 18 March 1941. The Prosecution was of the opinion that this was also an incitement for the persecution of Jews, and they said, further, that it was proof of your propaganda with the term "master race." Mr. President, this speech of 18 March 1941 may be found in my Document Book Number 1, Pages 2 to 7. [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution quoted only one paragraph from this speech. What can you tell us in this connection?
FRITZSCHE: I do not wish to read this quotation. I rather ask that you read it carefully yourself, and after you have read it you will see that I completely agreed with Mr. Roosevelt when he said that there was no master race. I endorsed the correctness of this sentence not only as it applied to the German people, but to Jewry as well. The Prosecution concluded from this sentence that it was a justification for acts committed in Jewish persecutions in the past and that it was a foreboding of more persecutions to come. I do not understand this conclusion; it has no basis whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: In our copy there is no date at the top of Page 2 of your Volume I-yes, I see it is in the index. Which page of it is the passage that the Prosecution quotes?
DR. FRITZ: On Page 5 under Point 5, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
DR. FRITZ: It begins with the words, "But the crown . . ." and so forth. That is the quotation used by the Prosecution. [Turning to the defendant.] The third quotation used by the Prosecution is a passage from the speech which you made on 9 October 1941. Mr. President, the whole speech is to be found in Document Book Number 1, Pages 20 to 25. [Turning to the defendant.] The Prosecution quoted only one paragraph from this speech as well. In this paragraph, you, Herr Fritzsche, are speaking about a new wave of international Jewish-democratic-bolshevistic agitation. What can you tell us about this?
FRITZSCHE: I have very little to say in this connection. This speech was made in those days of the autumn of 1941 when the Reich Press Chief had announced that German victory in the East had been decisive. I had warned the entire German press about taking this slogan without reservations. I did not believe in this decision which supposedly had already taken place. I suggested to all German newspapers that they speak about a prolonged duration of the war. In this speech of mine I wanted to weaken the impression of the official victory bulletin. Therefore, in this speech, and perhaps for the first time in Germany, I mentioned those three factors which, in fact, later on determined the war in the East against Germany: First of all, the partisans; secondly, the international help in the way of arms and munitions; and thirdly, propaganda. This last part alone was quoted by the Prosecution. As I have already said, this last part is quite in accord with the knowledge and opinion I held at that time.
DR. FRITZ: The next quotation used by the Prosecution is an extract from a speech which you made on 8 January 1944. The complete speech, Mr. President, may be found in my Document Book Number 1. It is speech Number 7, to be found on Pages 40 to 45. [Turning to the defendant.] In this speech you are stating that it was not a new form of government or a new form of socialism which had brought about the war, but rather the agitation of Jews and plutocrats was responsible for this. How did you come to make that statement?
FRITZSCHE: To justify it, I should like to refer here, too, to everything that I have already said, and beyond that, I should like to emphasize that this rather heated accusation was not made by me just out of the blue or just because I wanted to agitate. This is proven by the context. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to state briefly the connection in this case. The topic of this speech was the differences of opinion which existed at that time between the Polish Exile Government in Moscow-bather, in London-and the Soviet Government in Moscow. There was a matter of territorial demands which they disagreed on, and on this occasion I quoted the London Times word for word. The London Times said that "the relinquishing of Polish regions, as demanded by Russia, was only a small and modest price for the absolute and reliable guarantee to Poland of help through the Soviet Union." This statement made by the London Times I used as a matter of course in a polemic statement in which I said, "Well, if the Times had written in such a strain in August of 1939, that it was only about a city or a road, then surely there would not have been any war," and so forth. On this occasion I should like to state that all of these quotations, almost without exception, show only the combination of the concept Jew, Plutocrat, Bolshevik. The question of race was not the primary one, but the thing that was primary was the ideological struggle as it seemed, to my mind, to be taking place.