dtufail/nuremberg-trials-corpus huggingface dataset:
DR. FRITZ: Now I shall turn to a different topic. You are accused by the Prosecution of having incited atrocities, and that the results of your propaganda covered every phase of the conspiracy, including abnormal and inhuman treatment and behavior. In this connection I shall, therefore, have to ask you about the whole question of concentration camps. Did you know that the concentration camps existed?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, the fact of their creation was announced publicly, I believe in 1933; and the concentration camps were mentioned later in official communiqués.
DR. FRITZ: What was the purpose of these camps in your opinion at that time?
FRITZSCHE: As far as I can recollect, the persons to be taken to these camps were those who could not be restrained from taking an active part against the new State. It was stated that the reason for the establishment of these camps was the abnormal internal political situation prevailing at that time: A weak center party and two strong extreme parties, one of which had now assumed power. Steps were taken to put matters on a proper legal basis. Only later was it mentioned that habitual criminals were also to be brought to the concentration camps to prevent them from reverting to crime.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the number of concentration camps which were established in the course of time? FRITZSCHE. Before the war I had heard about three camps. During the war I suspected there were five to six; and the chart of a large number of camps which was exhibited here, was quite a surprise to me.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the number of prisoners in these camps?
FRITZSCHE: Nothing definite. At the beginning of the war, foreign reports mentioned millions of prisoners. At that time, together with a few journalists, I asked Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich to arrange an interview with members of the local and foreign press in order to discuss the matter. He did so. As far as I can recollect, he did not give any definite figures; but rather he compared them with the number of inmates at the prisons and penitentiaries in former days. This comparison did not seem to be disquieting. That was in the winter of 1940 or 1941.
DR. FRITZ: Did you not have any doubts as to the accuracy of those figures?
FRITZSCHE: Not at that time.
DR. FRITZ: Did you know anything about the conditions in the concentration camps? Did you speak to anyone who had ever been in a concentration camp?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. Even as early as 1933 or 1934 I spoke to a journalist who had been interned for a few weeks in the Oranienburg concentration camp, which was the old Oranienburg camp. He informed me that he himself had not been tortured but that he had seen and heard how others had been beaten and how their fingers had deliberately been squeezed in a door.
DR. FRITZ: Did you just accept these reports and do nothing about them? ~
FRITZSCHE: Quite the contrary! I made quite a row. This journalist-I believe his name was Stolzenberg, as far as I remember- did not wish to have his name mentioned. I wrote three letters, one to Dr. Goebbels-and he informed me that he would look into the matter-another letter to Frick as Minister of the Interior, and one to Goering as Prussian Prime Minister. Senior officials from both these offices rang me up and told me that an investigation was being carried out. A short time afterwards, I heard that this old camp Oranienburg had been dissolved and that the commander had been sentenced to death. This was a report given to me by a Herr Von Lutzow, who was press reporter for Diels or Diehl, who at that time was chief of the State Police.
DR. FRITZ: After this first successful protest against ill-treatment, did you receive any further reports about atrocities in concentration camps? '
FRITZSCHE: No. I received no further reports about ill-treatment. On the contrary, I frequently made individual inquiries of members of the Gestapo or of the press section of the Reichsfuehrer SS. All of the individuals whom I asked declared the following: Beastliness in the concentration camps only occurred in 1933 or at the beginning of 1934 at the time when these camps were guarded by members of the SA, who had no profession-that is to say, by those members of the SA who had the whole day at their disposal, and some of them were far from being the best type of men. In this connection I was told further that the 30th of June signified that a purge had taken place. The 30th of June had removed those Gauleiter and those SA leaders who had abused their power. They declared finally that the concentration camps were now being guarded by the SS, who had engaged professional guards, professional administrators and officials expert in dealing with criminal matters, and prison control officials. I was told that this would be a guarantee against abuses.
DR. FRITZ: Did you inquire about certain individuals who were in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: Of course, I inquired about well-known personalities such as Parson Niemoller or Schuschnigg, also about Leipkins, Hess' private secretary who had been arrested; and in each case I received information which was reassuring.
DR. FRITZ: They, of course, may have been exceptions because they were well known and were prominent people. Did you not try to speak to other people who had been in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: Yes. In April of 1942 I met a former official of the Communist Party, whose name was Reintgen. We had been soldiers together for 6 months; and therefore he reported quite frankly to me, without keeping anything back. He said that he had been illtreated in 1933, having had lashes on his back, but not afterwards. This information fully coincided with my observations.
DR. FRITZ: Did you yourself visit concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: No, I have never been inside the compound of a concentration camp. However, during the winter of 1944-45 I was frequently in the administration building near the Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen camp. Apart from that, I spoke to prisoners as often as I was able to do so, if I happened to see them either on the march or at work.
DR. FRITZ: With whom did you speak at Oranienburg?
FRITZSCHE: With a colleague of Obergruppenfuehrer Glucks and twice also with him personally. They told me that the foreign reports regarding cruel treatment were false. They said that the treatment was not only humane but decidedly good, as after all, the prisoners were valuable laborers. I spoke at some length about the working hours, for at that time a rather silly decree had been issued about a general extension of working hours. The attitude taken by Glucks was very reasonable, namely, that longer working hours would not necessarily result in greater output. Therefore the working hours of 8 to 10 hours a day remained as before. He did not mention anything about extermination through overwork. That is something I heard about for the first time in Court.
DR. FRITZ: And how about your questions which you put to the prisoners direct?
FRITZSCHE: Well, first of all, there was always a guard present, and quite naturally the prisoners were suspicious; but eventually I always received positive replies to positive questions. Briefly, the gist of these replies was always the same, that they had been unjustly arrested. Their food was really better than in prison and I frequently heard this phrase: "Well, anyway we are not soldiers here." The weapons carried by the guards were only rifles or revolvers; I did not see any truncheons.
DR. FRITZ: Did you not become more and more suspicious about these concentration camps, after listening to foreign radio reports?
FRITZSCHE: Not for a long time, for the reasons which I gave yesterday. Reports from English members of Parliament regarding the Buchenwald case were first mentioned in April 1945. But this case is so very recent that for brevity's sake I do not need to describe particulars of the incidents that occurred in the Ministry of Propaganda.
DR. FRITZ: How can you explain the fact that crimes and illtreatment of the worst kind undoubtedly took place in concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: I am on the horns of a frightful dilemma, since I heard the first reliable reports about these things here in prison 2a June 46 Only a part of these terrible conditions, which were found to exist, can be explained through the stoppage of traffic and communications at the end of the war. The rest is more than enough. Obviously, the decree for the secret murder of masses of people had brutalized to a terrible extent those people who were entrusted with the execution of this decree.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not know whether this explanation is of any value to us as evidence. We have already heard all about this matter. He has given us his explanation as to why he says he did not know.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have but two more questions I should like to put to the defendant. Herr Fritzsche, it has been said here in Court that conditions in concentration camps were generally known to the German people. As a journalist, will you give us your opinion and the reasons on which it is based?
THE PRESIDENT: Has he not given us that already?
DR. FRITZ: No, I beg your pardon, Mr. President. He gave his opinion when it was a question of the ill-treatment and extermination of Jews, but on the topic of the extermination of Jews, I asked him. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you are asking him what his opinion as a journalist was. I do not see that that is of any importance to us.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should be grateful if you would allow me to put the question, as this is my last question but one. I expect an answer from the defendant, an answer which would assist the Tribunal in arriving at a judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: On what matter do you want his opinion as a journalist?
DR. FRITZ: The Defendant Fritzsche would like to repeat a few statements such as some made, for instance, by Dr. Goebbels.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may ask the question. [Turning to the defendant.] Did you understand the question?
FRITZSCHE: I believe a confusion has arisen, inasmuch as I do not wish to quote Dr. Goebbels on this subject but rather in relation to our last series of questions which seem to me more important than the question you have just put to me now.
DR. FRITZ: In any event, I should like you to give me a brief answer to my question. Shall I repeat the question?
FRITZSCHE: Thank you, no. In this connection I should like to refer briefly to the statements which I already made about the murders; that there were many rumors but those rumors were denied. Undoubtedly an iron ring of silence surrounded these terrible events and the only thing I observed in the course of my work, and which appears to me to be important, is that in the RSHA and some of its branches there must have existed groups who worked systematically with the view of concealing these atrocities by issuing reassuring statements and denials to the offices which represented the public.
DR. FRITZ: Now I should like to put a last comprehensive question. In the course of your examination by me, you made statements about Hitler and his policies which were entirely different from those you made long ago in your radio broadcasts, et cetera. Can you tell us briefly the date and the reason for your change of opinion?
FRITZSCHE: I would like to answer this question very precisely. The first milestone on the road to this realization was not due to the German defeat, for right or wrong is independent of victory or defeat. The fact was that Hitler tried to use this defeat for the extermination of the German people, as Speer has now horribly confirmed and as I was able to observe during the last phase of the conflict in Berlin when, through deceit by raising false hopes, boys of 15, 14,13, and l2 years of age were equipped with small arms to fight against tanks and called into battle, boys who otherwise might have been the hope for future reconstruction. Hitler found escape in death, leaving behind him the order to keep on fighting. He also left behind him the official report that he had died in battle. I learned that he had committed suicide; and thus my last public statement, on 2 May 1945, was to let everybody know of this suicide, for I wanted to kill a Hitler legend in the bud. Then, while in prison, I heard from a fellow prisoner, a German major named Sforner, that he had been arrested by the Gestapo, that he had been tortured in order to make him confess, and that in his presence, his wife had been beaten. That was the second milestone. The third stage concerned another coprisoner, the world-famous geographer, General Niedermeier, who proved to me that the reasons given by Hitler for the attack on Russia were false, at least on one important point. After he had talked with the interpreter, he could tell me that in the decisive discussion between Molotov and Ribbentrop in 1941, Molotov had not put forth any new demands but that, rather, he demanded that the assurances which had been given in 1939 should be effective. Therefore, a part of the reasons given-and I stress this point-that our attack on Russia was to anticipate a Russian attack, was no longer valid. The fourth factor was the proof submitted in Court here of the murder of 5 million Jews. I have already spoken about this matter.
FRITZSCHE: I consider it only my duty to testify to still another statement, a statement which Dr. Goebbels made in my presence on Saturday, 21 April 1945. Dr. Goebbels, who was in a great state of utmost excitement, speaking about the last decisive break-through of the Russians near Berlin, said, "After all, the German people did not want it otherwise. The German people by a great majority decided through a plebiscite on the withdrawal from the League of Nations and against a policy of yielding and chose, instead, a policy of courage and honor; thereby"-concluded Dr. Goebbels-"the German people themselves chose the war which they have now lost." These were the last words which I heard from Dr. Goebbels and these words are untrue. I declare under oath: Dr. Goebbels had never previously given such significance to that plebiscite. Never had he given it that interpretation. The exact opposite was the case. At the time of this plebiscite, the German people were explicitly given once again a solemn assurance of the will for peace on the part of Hitler and his associates. Therefore, I am convinced that Hitler and at least some of his colleagues had deliberately lied to the people on decisive points, right from the beginning of their political career; and, something that is not so important to history, I personally felt deceived on these points, too.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to the Defendant Fritzsche.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defendants' counsel wish to ask any questions?
DR. STAMMER: Witness, did you ever hear or ascertain, at the beginning when the concentration camps were being organized, that in addition to the regular camps other so-called "wildcat camps" existed which had been established by the SA leaders without the knowledge of the competent authorities?
FRITZSCHE: No. I heard nothing about it at that time. I heard about this distinction in the concentration camps for the first time here in Court.
DR. STAMMER: On the basis of your present-day knowledge, can you assert whether the abuses which you described occurred in these "wildcat" concentration camps?
FRITZSCHE: I can give you a very precise answer to that question. These abuses about which I learned occurred in the old camp Oranienburg, a camp situated in the Berliner Strasse. I do not know to which category that camp belonged. However, these abuses were stopped; and I emphasized in my testimony that, almost immediately after I sent my letter to the Prussian Prime Minister, I was called in by a ministerial counsellor or Ministerialdirektor, and I was assured that an investigation would be made-a promise which was kept-but in any case I do not remember whether a final report was sent me from this office.
DR. STAHMER: I have no further questions.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In June 1934 the publication of Von Papen's Marburg speech was forbidden. Is it correct to say that from that time onward, any statement on the part of the Defendant Von Papen could be published only with the previous approval of the Ministry of Propaganda?
FRITZSCHE: That is correct, and in even a closer sense. Confiscation of the Marburg speech, as I remember distinctly, was carried out at the instigation of Berndt, who later became Ministerialdirektor. This man drew Dr. Goebbels' attention to the speech. With regard to any other of Papen's announcements, the principle was that not even the Ministry of Propaganda had the right to release them for publication but, rather, that they had to be forwarded either to the Minister personally or to the Fuehrer.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: In your testimony you mentioned that you had known the Defendant Von Papen for some time and that you got to know him when you visited Turkey. Just when did you visit Turkey?
FRITZSCHE: In January, I believe it was 1944.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: What was the purpose of your visit?
FRITZSCHE: I delivered a speech to the German colony in Istanbul and Ankara on the occasion of the 30th of January.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Did Herr Von Papen have anything to do with this speech and with this festivity?
FRITZSCHE: No, less than nothing. I received an official request from Berlin to see to it that Herr Von Papen would not ostensibly depart before the celebration of the 30th of January, as he wanted to do. I did not attempt to persuade Herr Von Papen to stay and so he left his office in time to go skiing.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: That is all.
DR. THEODOR KLEFISCH (Counsel for SA): Witness, you just now said that it had been reported to you that at the end of the year 1933 and at the beginning of 1934 unemployed SA men were guarding certain concentration camps and that abuses were probably to be traced back to that fact. I have but one question: Who reported that to you? Who was the author of that report?
FRITZSCHE: The then press chief or press expert of Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, whose name was Gerhard Ratke.
DR. KLEFISCH: Thank you very much.
DR. FRITZ SAUTER (Counsel for Defendant Funk): Witness, the day before yesterday you stated that the Defendant Funk was not concerned with propaganda in the Propaganda Ministry but that in the main he was concerned with organizational and financial matters. Now I should like to ask you to answer several questions regarding the activities of the Defendant Funk in the Propaganda Ministry. You know, Witness, that at the beginning there was a Press Department of the Reich Government and that it was a State institution. How long did this Press Department exist, and what became of it?
FRITZSCHE: It had existed for quite some time, at least up until March 1933, when it was a branch of the Foreign Of lice. From then on it became a branch of the Propaganda Ministry, and it had a dual mission to carry on: First of all to be the Press Department of this Ministry and secondly, to continue functioning as the Press Department for the Reich Government.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, can you tell me who, beginning with March of 1933-that is, from the incorporation of the Press Department into the Propaganda Ministry-was the chief of this Press Department and, for all practical purposes, was the chief of the press system? Was that Funk or was it someone else?
FRITZSCHE: No, that was Ministerial Counsellor Jahnke, successor to Ministerial Director Berndt. This Press Department was then divided into three sections: German press...
DR. SAUTER: I am not interested in that, Witness, I am interested only in knowing whether the chief of this department was the Defendant Funk or whether it is correct to say that he had nothing to do with these matters.
FRITZSCHE: Nominally, of course, he was the chief, but with the practical operation he had nothing to do. That was taken care of by Dr. Goebbels, Hahnke, and Jahnke.
DR. SAUTER: And later Berndt?
FRITZSCHE: Yes.
DR. SAUTER: Witness, I have another question. Who had the management of the press policy in the Propaganda Ministry? I am still referring to the State organ. Did the Defendant Funk have anything to do with it, or just who was it? Who directed the press policy?
FRITZSCHE: At that time Dr. Goebbels himself exercised that function. Later on it was the Reich Press Chief, Dr. Dietrich.
DR. SAUTER: The Defendant Funk was State Secretary in the Propaganda Ministry, or at least he had the title of State Secretary. Now, looking at this matter rather generally, I would be interested in knowing this: Did he, in fact, have the position of a State Secretary and exercise authority as such, or did another official exercise the function of State Secretary as the regular deputy of the Minister?
FRITZSCHE: As a matter of course, naturally, he had the position, the power, the prestige, and the salary of a State Secretary; but the practical work was. distributed a little differently.
DR. SAUTER: Just how was it handled?
FRITZSCHE: I have already mentioned that. Practically, Funk concerned' himself with organization and finance as they applied to the gigantic cultural concern which was being developed at that time; whereas the actual policy was set up by Dr. Goebbels with the chief of his ministerial 'office, Hahnke, who was the successor of Funk as State Secretary.
DR. SAUTER: I have one final question, Witness, which refers to another topic. Do you know what Minister Dr. Goebbels, in November of 1938 or later, said about the Jewish pogroms of 9 November 1938, with regard to Defendant Funk?
FRITZSCHE: Much later Dr. Goebbels stated in my presence that sometimes radical measures would just simply have to be taken, for instance, when Funk had constantly declared that the Jews could not be eliminated from economic life; but he, Dr. Goebbels, had to prove to Funk that it could be done by organizing the riots of 8 November.
DR. SAUTER: In this connection did he say anything about the fact that this Jewish action, for which Dr. Goebbels was responsible, was also instigated' with the purpose of discrediting Dr. Funk and confronting him with a fait accompli? Did he state anything like that?
FRITZSCHE: That was the sense of the answer that I just gave you.
DR. SAUTER: I have no further questions, Mr. President.
DR. WALTER SIEMERS (Counsel for Defendant Raeder): Herr Fritzsche, in this Court we have heard what grave accusations are made against the Defendant Raeder because of an article in the newspaper Volkischer Beobachter . The article I refer to is "Churchill Sinks the Athenia ," which was published on 23 October 1939. Mr. President, this is Document 3260-PS, or Exhibit GB-218. I should like to put a few questions pertaining to the Athenia case. Herr Fritzsche, when did the Propaganda Ministry receive the report about the torpedoing of the Athenia , and through what channels?
FRITZSCHE: I cannot give you the date from memory, but I do know that we received this report by wireless; that is, we listened in to a foreign broadcast.
DR. SIEMERS: This wireless report came in shortly after the sinking of the Athenia , is that right?
FRITZSCHE: Without doubt.
DR. SIEMERS: Did the Propaganda Ministry get in touch with the High Command of the Navy in order to learn the details of this matter?
FRITZSCHE: Yes, I personally did that because I happened to have a liaison officer from the Navy High Command in my office for censorship advice.