dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): We have furthermore heard the influence-it is of no importance here whether it was due to Hitler, Goebbels, or Dietrich-which other governmental agencies successfully exercised on the press and radio. Here I will mention the Foreign Of lice,' the High Command of the Armed Forces, and other ministries, the heads of which were much more closely connected with the three aforementioned personages than, for instance, Fritzsche. 31G In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I would like to point out that the assertion of the Indictment that Fritzsche was in some way closely connected with the Party propaganda apparatus, for instance, with the so-called Reich Press Agency of the NSDAP, or the radio department of the Party, has been positively withdrawn by the Prosecution in the course of the Trial. With this, I think that I have sufficiently established the limits of the defendant's responsibility. This limitation shows the inaccuracy of the widely spread opinion that Fritzsche occupied a very important and influential position in the "gigantic propaganda apparatus" of the Third Reich. This limitation not only takes into account the legal but also the moral facts, which have been clearly indicated by the hearing of evidence. Thus to a certain extent I have already taken a stand against the charge that Fritzsche was a member of the alleged conspiracy. The Prosecution have repeatedly tried to incorporate Fritzsche's work, at its different stages, in the alleged group of conspirators, and have drawn from it conclusions which go so far as to say that Fritzsche was therefore also responsible for War Crimes, for Crimes against Humanity, and even for Crimes against Peace (Session of 23 January 1946). Even in the arguments of the Indictment, these attempts seemed to have little relevant justification. It is hardly any improper criticism if I declare here that it caused the Prosecution a certain embarrassment to display Fritzsche's subordinate position as an official as so important and full of meaning.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Today, now that the hearing of evidence is complete, it seems to me that the attempts to include Fritzsche in the circle of conspirators have failed. Fritzsche cannot be found litany of the sessions at which Hitler discussed any plans or actions with the closer or wider circle of his collaborators. And apart from this, he never actually took part either in any discussions which might have teen of a nature to plunge the world into the blood bath of wars of aggression. He was neither an "old Party fighter," nor was he decorated later on with the Golden Party Badge. He did not belong, as I had to emphasize especially, to any of the organizations which are here alleged to be criminal. Up to the end he fulfilled the functions of an official in a ministry and received directives like any other official He could never have been a political adviser. In view of the circumstances, the bridge between himself and the alleged conspiracy could have been spanned only by the person of Dr. Goebbels. The witness Von Schirrmeister has repudiated such an assumption. According to his testimony, Fritzsche did not even belong to the closer circle around Dr. Goebbels. Indeed, Von Schirrmeister could even state that Fritzsche often had to apply to him because he could not get Dr. Goebbels' opinion on some question other than through hi, as he was Dr. Goebbels' personal press assistant. Communicating through the state secretaries-for instance, Dr. Dietrich, Dr. Naumann, to mention only a few-also involved certain difficulties. That is not the manner in which conspirators usually communicate. Moreover, the witness Von Schirrmeister has said that it was out of the question that Fritzsche could even have embarked on an exchange of ideas with Dr. Goebbels with a view to forming plans. Now, it would have been the task of the Prosecution to prove to the Defendant Fritzsche where his participation in the conspiracy can be seen. I say that one cannot consider any count of the Indictment as proved.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): I think that it was not Fritzsche's official positions at all which led to the bringing of an indictment against him. I rather assume that the latter is solely to be traced back to his broadcast speeches which made him and his name known-but only during the war- both in Germany and perhaps also in a part of the rest of the world. All the serious charges leveled against him can be traced back only to these radio addresses. The other assertions concerning his position within the state or Party apparatus are only based on assumptions or combinations without any factual basis, which is especially evident, for example, from the purely personal and refuted statements of Schorner, Voss, and Stahel. But his name became so wellknown only because of the technical means he utilized. Only the great significance of the radio for the modern transmission of news made him appear in a special light. It cannot be denied that in this way he had a great influence on the German people, but from our own experiences of Nazi-ruled Germany, I can well say that every Gau speaker (Gauredner) and many a district leader (Kreisleiter) used much stronger language. But, as a rule, their speeches were published only by the local press. The defense was handicapped with respect to these radio addresses insofar as the complete text of all of them could not be made available. Unfortunately, the excerpts quoted during crossexamination by the Russian Prosecution could not be supplemented by the entire text of the respective speech; thus there was no possibility of reproducing the sense which the respective address had at the time of delivery. I shall come back to this and give an example later. To submit only single passages or quotations to the Tribunal is especially inadequate, because such excerpts do not show that in his speeches Fritzsche always put the events of the day in the foreground. It was only rarely and incidentally that he drew any general ideological conclusions.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): But even what Fritzsche has said here about those of his addresses which the Prosecution were able to produce in their entirety shows a completely different picture of the cause and motives of his broadcast speeches: From 1932-that is, already before the seizure of power by National Socialism-up to 1939, these speeches were nothing but a political press review. And that is what they were called. They were therefore a collection of quotations from domestic and foreign newspapers. Fritzsche does not dispute the fact that these collections were made on the basis of the interests of the National Socialist State. Only during the war-but right up to the end they were still based on quotations also from the foreign press-did these speeches become the platform for the polemical controversy which in time of war is naturally carried on from both sides. Without any doubt, they greatly contributed toward the formation of political opinion in Germany; but there is also no doubt that many people in Germany listened to Fritzsche's speeches not for their polemics but in order to learn from his quotations at least something about the opinions expressed abroad. For years these speeches constituted purely private work carried out alongside his official position. Only during the war did they come to be considered as semiofficial because of their increasing political news value. Thus-to make it clearer- they assumed approximately the character of editorials in a newspaper which, as one says, is closely connected with the government. It would have been easy for the defense to submit to the Tribunal tons of newspapers dating from the same time, the editorials of which showed the same trend, and even-this can be said quite definitely-used considerably stronger language. Fritzsche has been able to repudiate most decidedly-and in my opinion quite rightfully-that these addresses constituted an incitement to race hatred, to murder or violence, to hatred among nations, or to wars of aggression.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): If such an effect could really have been produced by these speeches, absolutely the same reproach should fall upon any editor of the Third Reich who received the "daily directives" from the Reich Press Chief. Fritzsche seems to be accused before this Tribunal only because through technical means he could be heard over a wide range. But it is, especially in wartime-and only since 1939 did his speeches have a political news value at all- in the nature of things, that the controversialist becomes himself the subject of controversy, especially the one whose influence, considered from the standpoint of political news value, extended further technically than the influence of an article in a local paper. Only in this manner did his name become better known to outsiders than names of people who were much more powerful than the publicist. How far the Prosecution went in their accusations against Fritzsche in his capacity of a publicist is shown by the fact that not only is he supposed to have belonged to the plotting group of conspirators, but that he is also accused of Crimes against Peace. If a propagandist is subjected to such an accusation, there immediately arises the question whether public radio speeches would not be the . least proper means for carrying through criminal aims of a secret conspiracy. Speeches, which can be heard all over the world, could at best be suitable for camouflaging such aims and for misleading the world. But actually, just the opposite reproach is leveled against Fritzsche: he is supposed to have incited other people. I think I have now dealt at sufficient length with the nature and the character of these speeches. Their importance had to be adjusted to the proper scale in view of the far-reaching conclusions of the Prosecution.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Before going into the details of the charge that by radio speeches, or by other means, Fritzsche contributed toward the various wars of aggression, it is necessary, in a case in which accusations to that effect pertaining to criminal or international law are raised against a publicist, to deal with a legal problem. At no point, as far as I can see, did the Prosecution consider the question of whether and to what extent propaganda-that is, the attempt to influence minds- especially during war, was or still is subject to the rules of international law. Perhaps the problem did not come up only because this question, once it was asked, would have had to be definitely denied. While it is true that the Indictment speaks of the "gigantic propaganda apparatus" during Hitler's dictatorship, which was created as a consequence of the supervision and control of all cultural activity, it does not draw any conclusions for a judgment according to international law. For, as a matter of fact, no generally or specially valid rules concerning this field have ever been established, no sort of prescriptive law developed in this sphere either. In this connection, it is interesting that in the textbooks of international law no attention at all-as far as I could find out-is paid to this problem. A certain number of textbooks, however, especially those with a tint of natural law, regularly contain in their catalogs of fundamental international law a section on national honor or national dignity. These chapters deduce from the equality of nations, and their living together in a community governed by international law, the demand that the nations treat each other with respect. And they furthermore demand that insults directed against other countries by private persons from their own sphere of influence be prevented, and that if committed, such excesses be punished.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): But this idea found its positive legal expression only in a number of national criminal codes in which-naturally in peacetime only-the insulting of foreign chiefs of state, for instance,* is made a punishable offense. Another doctrine, which is based less upon natural law, holds that this is not a question of legal obligation but one of international courtesy only. Be that as it may, an international law * Crimes Against Foreign Countries, Swiss Gazette for Penal Law. (Schweizer Zeitschrift ar das Strafrecht) 1928, Page 317. precisely defined in some way does not exist, not even for times of peace, especially not as far as private propaganda through press and writings is concerned. And as to war, any directive in this respect is lacking altogether as I have already pointed out. According to existing rules of international law there are no limits to propaganda against foreign countries in time of war. Consequently, there is only one barrier to this propaganda-namely, the great barrier which governs all the rules of warfare that everything is permitted quod ad finem belli necessarium est. In view of the tremendous importance of psychological influence upon the will of individuals and nations, it is beyond doubt that propaganda can be an important and, in certain cases, even decisive means of war, no less important than, for instance, economic warfare or even warfare with weapons. Propaganda in this case has a double task: First, to serve as a means for increasing the power of resistance of one's own nation, and second, to undermine the fighting powers of the opponent. This influence-whitewashing on one side, slandering on the other, concealment of facts, et cetera-is essentially nothing else but a stratagem which, within the framework of the rules of land warfare, has been expressly declared as a permissible instrument of warfare, according to Article 24 of the Hague Rules of Land Warfare.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): In this connection, it may be pointed out that spying-also a form of war stratagem-had likewise been declared as a permissible instrument of warfare by the Hague Rules of Land Warfare. What has been said here is in complete accord with what is practiced by all countries; defamation of the opponent and his statesmen, making the opponent contemptible, falsifying the motives and intentions of the enemy, slanderous assumptions, assertion of unproved statements-all this belongs unfortunately to those means of propaganda which during a war are used on all sides and at an increasing rate. Minor attempts, but only for the purpose of preventing war, are known from the time before the first World War. At that time, they had an even farther-reaching aim-namely, to contribute in general to an understanding among nations by means of a general moral and spiritual disarmament (desarmement morale). However, this goal was not reached before the first world conflagration of this century. After 1918 though, as a reaction after the great armed conflicts, this aim received a stronger uplift and became known to the world through the tasks imposed upon the League of Nations in this respect. This was indeed the first real attempt to start an intellectual disarmament. At the fifth session of the League of Nations in 1925 in Paris it was decided to found an institute for intellectual co-operation (cooperation intellectuelle). Further investigations, which lasted for years, resulted in numerous proposals, in the establishment of general committees and subcommittees, of sections and committees of experts with an incalculable wealth of documents. But nevertheless none of these great efforts converted the idealistic impulse and the longing of the nations for a "spiritual disarmament" and intellectual co-operation into sober and concrete legislation which would have imposed legal obligations on the individual states as well as on their nations.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): No results were achieved in pointing a way which in time of war would prevent hatred, incitement, distortion of facts, and provocation of other nations or nationals of other countries in all the possible modern forms of expression. Even such wel7-defined and comprehensive propositions for a moral-intellectual disarmament as those presented by the Polish Government to the League of Nations in two memoranda of 17 September 1931 * and 13 February 1932 ** had the same fate. These propositions aimed at using national legislation to prohibit any propaganda which might become dangerous for peace, and even any propaganda which aimed at a mere disturbance of the good relations between nations. Influence was to be exerted not only upon the big public news media but also upon the vast ramifications in the administration of every modern state, including even the revision of schoolbooks. These propositions which advised member states not to recoil even from censorship and measures of prohibition finally came to nought because they stood in direct contradiction to the deeply rooted conception that freedom of expression of opinion in intellectual matters could not be undermined by such exceptionally far-reaching police measures; this freedom of expression had to be preserved as an "inalienable right" granted by the Creator. And this opposition on fundamental principles ended matters. We have in the course of the Trial seen ample evidence of the effect which censorship and control of the press, radio, and films may have. The few bilateral agreements which were concluded after the failure of the Polish propositions of 1931 and 1932 are not worth mentioning here. They are concerned with certain forms of propaganda only, and solely with periods of good international relations. We can only express here the hope, therefore, that on the basis of international solidarity it will in the future be possible also to reconcile these two still opposing theses on a higher level. * Letter of the Polish Foreign Minister to the General Secretary of the League of Nations.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Official Number C. 602. M. 240.1931. D: (Conf. D. 16); also reproduced in Peter Dietz' Geistige Abritstung, Pages 137-143, Erlangen Library under the Number U 36J3564. ** Propositions of the Polish Delegation covering the progressive achievement of moral disarmament. Official Number Conference D. 76; reproduced also in Dietz, Pages 143-145. In the course of this Trial a secret order was produced which had been issued by the High Command of the Armed Forces on 1 October 1938 (Document C-2). This document showed that the division for international law in the OKW had drawn up a chart for the event of an armed conflict, and this chart was to show the principles for dealing with any possible violation of the rules of warfare by friend and foe. With the knowledge of the legal vacuum existing in the field of propaganda in its broadest sense, it is stated there that from the point of view of international law it is absolutely permissible to make the opponent contemptible and to try to undermine his strength "regardless of how many lies and falsehoods are used for this purpose," and that from the legal standpoint a rule for the future could even be established to the effect that if the enemy employed such propaganda, defense by means of "counterattacks" would be legally possible, and whereby "naturally the propagation of atrocity lies" must also be fused. This may sound cynical and brutal. But unfortunately it fitted in with the customs of war, or rather, this undisguised statement originated in the legal lacuna which could actually be found in international agreements and in prescriptive law. Dr. Kranzbuhler rightly stated here: In war the duty to tell the truth does not exist. Owing to the period of time which has elapsed since the first World War and its propaganda methods on both sides, we can today consider the events of those days as belonging to history. At that time, too, all belligerents gave great consideration to their efforts to undermine the enemy by means of propaganda.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): But the legend of children's hands cut off by German soldiers-a war lie, as Arthur Ponsonby proved in his book Falsehood in Wartime *- was still alive in a French schoolbook even in the midst of peace, nearly 10 years after the first World War.** Publications of all belligerent countries-drawings and cartoons dating from the time of the first World War alone-can be found in masses in all libraries. Many will still remember the film The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse which showed terrible atrocities, and circulated almost throughout the whole world at the time of the first World War. Legally, this matter had unfortunately to remain unsettled up to this point. In view of the goal striven for by Justice Jackson in this Trial of creating a new international law, can the case of the Defendant Fritzsche as a publicist in the Nazi State be included * Arthur Ponsonby, M. P., Falsehood in Wartime, containing an assortment of lies circulated throughout the nations during the great war, published in London by George Allen and Unwin Ltd., Museum Street, 1928. ** In a schoolbook for Lorraine: Deuxieme livre du syllabaire Langlois: (Second book of the Langlois Primer); which was still in use in 1927, and which refers to these alleged events on Page 156 under the heading "Remember"; reproduced in the Informations d'Alsace-Lorraine of 20 March 1927. retroactively? Can the desire of the Prosecution to see Fritzsche punished as a war criminal be derived from their assertion of a logical development of existing laws (Sir Hartley Shawcross, Session of 4 December 1945, a. m.) when up to now nothing, absolutely nothing, has been legally and properly ruled upon in the field of propaganda, and no promising beginnings of any kind have appeared in this direction? Here it is certainly not a question of only an apparent legal loophole (Session of 4 December 1945). What has been said, of course, does not include those cases in which individual crimes were actually incited by means of propaganda.
DR. HEINZ FRITZ (Counsel for Defendant Fritzsche): Therefore, I shall now go into the individual charges of the Prosecution in order to show that Fritzsche is not guilty of having committed such acts. As far as the alleged crime against peace is concerned, the Prosecution act on the assumption that any important political and military attack on the part of the German state leadership was preceded by a press campaign. Therefore, the Nazi conspirators must have used the press also as an instrument of foreign policy and as a feint to cover subsequent aggressive action. From that general, perhaps even correct, description of such intentions, the far-reaching conclusion is drawn that Fritzsche may also be partly responsible for them. Such responsibility would be based merely on the chronological circumstance that he was the Chief of the German Press Division within the official Ministry of Propaganda from December 1938 to the spring of 1942. But the premises are lacking for this conclusion. It could only be justified if it had been successfully proved that Fritzsche was the real creator and inspirer of all those press campaigns. But Fritzsche, if only because of his subordinate position-subordinate not only in regard to the departmental organization but also compared with the real leaders of propaganda, Hitler, Goebbels, Dietrich, and others-could know only what his superior passed on to him-as well as to other civil servants-as the historical truth. May I bring to mind the fact that all witnesses who have testified in any way about the influence of the foreign policy on the press always pointed out that before beginning any political-and especially before beginning any military-operation, the Foreign Office justified the measures taken in the field of high policy before the public in White Books prepared by them. Just as in the case of other intentions or goals of the highest leaders of the Third Reich, the press, too, was informed in these cases only of that which the general public was permitted to learn, while matters not destined for publication were kept secret.