I am asking you whether this corresponds to reality.
28 June M LJG 9-4
AI shouldn't have expressed it like that, and I think it is a question of taste.
QWell -
AJust a moment. I shall have to say something else; I shall have to add something.
The expression "nearest fellow fighter of Goebbels" is wrong objectively seen, and " darling" --well, I don't think so.
QYes, very well. Let's go further.
You enjoyed the complete confidence of Goebbels and you had wide powers in the Ministry of Propaganda which were entrusted to you.
AAbsolutely.
QVery well. Thus, enjoying his confidence and having full powers, in your utterances you fully mirrored the demands of the Hitler Government which were made tasks of German propaganda, is that correct?
AYes, to the exact extent which described yesterday.
QNow, I should like to read into the record some extracts from your testimony of the 12th of September 1945. I am submitting this document as USSR Exhibit 474. I am going to read into the record Extract No. 1.
AMay I have the document?
QCertainly, it will be submitted to you immediately. Will you please follow after me. It is underlined in red pencil. I am reading:
"During a long time I was one of the leaders of German propaganda."
I skip a few lines and further read :
"I must say that Goebbels valued me as a sure National Socialist and a capable journalist in connection with which in the apparatus of the German propaganda I was one of his trusted people."
Is that correct ?
AMr. Prosecutor, that is not correct. I know that I have signed this report but at the very moment when I signed this report in Moscow I stated:
"You can do what you like with that record. If you publish it then nobody in Germany will believe it and no intelligent person in other countries will because this report contains language which is not mine."
I state that not a single one of the questions contained in this report was put to me in that same form and I go on to declare that not a single one of the answers in that record was given by me in that form and I signed it for reasons which I will explain to you in detail if you want me to.
QYou therefore deny these statements ?
ANo, only the signature is true.
QAll right, let us say only the signature is true, We should remember, therefore, that this quotqtion which I just read and which you deny, says that Goebbels valued you as a National Socialist and a capable journalist and in the apparatus of German propaganda you were a trustworthy person.
This is the essence of the quotation, is that right ? Do you deny this ? Just a minute please. I am going to remind you -
AYes, general, I admit that, that I admit, this fact -- that I will admit.
QWell, them the quotation was correct, was it not ?
AIndependently, yes,
QThen you do corroborate this statement ?
AI am talking about the record which has been put before me in its entirety.
QIn general -- now I am asking you particularly in reference to this quotation which I just read into the record. You are not going to deny it, you admit it ?
AI will not confirm your quotation but I will confirm once more the contents which you have just summarized again.
Q The sense is not different from the actual quotation but in connection with that I should like to ask you regarding the following, or rather remind you regarding -
THE PRESIDENT :One moment. What is it you are saying, defendant ? Are you saying that you did not sign this document or that you did ?
THE WITNESS :Mr. President, I signed the document, although its contents did not correspond with my own statements.
THE PRESIDENT :Why did you do that ?
THE WITNESS :I wrote that signature after very severe solitary confinement which had lasted for several months and I wrote that signature because one of my fellow prisoners, whom I had one chance to meet, had told me that once every month a court, based merely on outside records and without interrogation, was pronouncing sentences and I hoped that in this manner I would at least achieve being sentenced and thus terminate my confinement.
So as not to be misunderstood I should like to emphasize that no type of force was used and that I was treated very humanely, even if my detention was very severe. BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
QVery well. Of course, you never thought, defendant Fritsche, that because of the acts you committed you would be arrested. It is obvious that you would land in a prison and a prison is always a prison. This was just an aside, however.
I should like to ask you about the following. You stated that in 1945 you signed this because of a very strict regime to which you were submitted.
When you arrived in Nurnberg were you interrogated on 3 November, 1945, here in Nurnberg ?
AYes.
QBy General Alexandrov ?
AYes.
QSo that is correct -- very well.
I should like to remind you of some of your answers. On 12 November, 1945, questions were put to you and you replied. Do you remember these statements ? You said :
"I was very often cross-examined and I do not know what statements and testimony are in question now."
Thereupon, General Alexandrov submitted your testimony of 12 September and you answered him:
"I am fully aware of this document."
You were asked: "I should like you to peruse this document. Do you remember these statements?"
You said. "Of course, there is no doubt about it."
And further, you corroborated this document, which was signed by you and you said: "Of course."
Do you remember this statement which you made in Nurnberg?
AIn the statement which you have quoted, all these passages are missing with reference to which I stated again and again, that the record was put before me complete and for the purpose of obtaining my signature. I had twenty or thirty alterations that I designed. Some of them were fulfilled. Those passages are looking, wherein I said in Nurnberg that certain tendencies in my answers in that, protocol were true but that none of them actually do represent my own answers.
QI should now like to remind you of an extract from your statement of 7 January, 1946.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Your Honors, this is Exhibit 3469-PS. It is not in my book of documents as it was submitted by the defendant. I am going to quote from that document, it is a very short document. BY GENERALRUDENKO:
QThat is paragraph 39 of your statement.
"Once Goebbels tried to coerce me into submitting my texts for perusal. I refused this request and explained that usually I dictated a short resume of my speech immediately before my broadcast and consequently, so to say, improvise my speeches. He said it was all right but on condition that if he would wish it again,I should in the future only speak on specific, given themes." Is that right?
AYes.
QDoes that not indicate the trust which Goebbels had for you, is that not right?
ANo doubt he had a great deal of confidence in me and I did not deny it.
QVery well. Let us proceed.
In this very same document, which I have just mentioned to you, that is to say in your statement of 7 January, 1946, in paragraph 35 there is this sentence and it was written in your own hand, I think.
It was in reply to some of the questions put by your counsel. You say:
"I was the only official organ in the ministry in the field of radio communication."
Is that right? Does that correspond to reality?
AUnfortunately I did not hear the end of your question but you have quoted the passage correctly and I have written it.
QSo, it does correspond to actual reality?
AYes, absolutely.
QYou therefore will admit that in the apparatus of German propaganda, after Goebbels you occupied the most prominent position?
ANo, my previous answer does not contain such a statement. I will admit that I had a most influential position in German radio, of which I was the head.
If you now put a new question, asking who had the second position in the entire set-up of propaganda after Dr. Goebbels, I will reply to you Dr. Dietrich, the Secretary of State, or Dr. Naumann, the -
QExcuse me, just a minute please. I did not say the second place, I said only the most prominent position. Are you going to deny this?
A I have no objection to your use of the word "influential", but it does not change my answer.
QVery well, "influential position", if you like. That is still stronger. Let us proceed, however.
In the same statement of 7 January you said -- It is contained in paragraph 15 -- that the task during the entire period from 1933 to 1945 of the Section of the German Press was the supervision of the local press. Over 2,300 German newspapers were to be supervised in that fashion. Furthermore, during the execution of this task given to me by Dr. Goebbels, in accordance with instructions of the Ministry of Propaganda, I was the leader and I conducted it for the entire German Radio."
Is that correct?
AI don't know whether you have quoted the last sentences correctly, but I have certainly fully recognized the first sentences. It is my affidavit 3469-PS. That corresponds word for word with the truth.
QQuite correct. Please tell me this: Did you organize in the section of which you were the head, the section of the German press, the Schnelldienst, the so-called speed service, which was giving provocative material to the German press?
AIf you will eliminate the word "provocative" and replace it with the word "propaganda" material, then I will admit it.
QAll right. I think the Tribunal will beable to evaluate this statement. We are not going to argue about this.
Now, the last question from this group of questions: Tell me, your broadcasts on the radio, which were presented with "Hans Fritsche speaks" -were they official and government sponsored?
AI explained this situation to you yesterday. Actually, they were a private work of my own, but the private work, publicly audible , of a Ministerialdirektor of the Ministry of Propaganda and the head of the German radio system would, of course, then be regarded as semi-official, though not fully official, and this fact I had to consider, and I did consider it.
QAll right. Now, I should like again to revert to the testimony of Ferdinand Schorner, which I have already submitted to the Tribunal as USSR 472. I should like to quote paragraph number (2). Do you find it, defendant Fritsche?
A Yes.
QI am going to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko, the Tribunal would like to see the whole of this document, or at any rate would like to see the questions to which these are the answers.
GENERALRUDENKO:Mr. President, this document has been submitted to you in full.
THE PRESIDENT:Oh, I see, you mean that what we have in English are only the parts that have been translated into English?
GENERAL RUDENKO:Yes, that is quite correct. I am going to read into the record Extract Number 2. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q "I am fully aware that Fritsche was the main collaborator of the Ministry of Propaganda and that he was extremely popular in National Socialist circles and amongst the German people. He was widely known, especially for his weekly international political commentaries. I often heard Fritsche's broadcasts in peacetime as well as during the war. His broadcasts were fanatically partial to the Fuehrer."
Do you agree with this evaluation?
AI cannot raise any objection to this quotation, but beyond that -
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko, is the document sworn?
GENERAL RUDENKO:This document was submitted in accordance with the processes which are in use in the Soviet Union.
THEPRESIDENT: where was it taken?
GENERAL RUDENKO:In Moscow.
THE PRESIDENT:Was the man who made the statement, was he free or was he in prison?
GENERAL RUDENKO:He was at the time a prisoner of war.
THE PRESIDENT:Did the man who is alleged to have made the statement sign it?
GENERALRUDENKO:Of course, it was signed by him.
THE PRESIDENT:Go on.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Thank you. THE WITNESS: May I add that it is known to me that in the far corners of German colonies abroad, my radio speeches were, shall we say, the political comments.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
QYes, I understand. I should like to put to you anotherdocument which I will ask you to peruse.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Your Honors, I am submitting as Exhibit USSR-471 the testimony of Hans Foss. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
QDo you know this name, Vice admiral Hans Foss?
AI know the name, but as far as I remember, not the man.
DR.FRITZ: (Counsel for defendant Fritsche) I apologize, Mr. President. Perhaps not too much should be attached to the Schorner record, but at any rate I am unable to ascertain from the document the place where it was taken.
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko says that it was taken at Moscow.
DR. FRITZ:But the record, the protocol itself does not show that, and then I have also noticed that the photostatic copy which I have here does not show the signature. It just says "signed". Later on in the right margin a handwritten signature has been affixed, but I do not know whether this is the common procedure there or what.
THE PRESIDENT:You can see the original and compare it. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
QI am speaking about the document which is a written declaration by Hans Foss. Please look at the extract number 1, which is underlined:
"Being wholly faithful to Hitler and the National Socialist Party, Fritsche extended priceless services in spreading National Socialism throughout Germany."
Is that in accordance with reality?
AWell least I will not object.
QIn other words, you are in accord with it?
AAs I told you, I do not object, but I do not want to say by that that I concur.
QOn the other hand, you do not deny this?
ANo, I say for the third time that I do not raise any objection.
QVery well. I understands Let us proceed further. I should like to question you regarding your attitude toward the racial theory. Yesterday you explained in detail in this connection to your Defense Counsel, and I am going to put to you only two or three questions, and I should like you to reply briefly.
Did you share this racial theory?
AYes, and precisely to the extent which I described to you yesterday.
QAll right. In a radio broadcast on 8 February 1940 there was an utterance concerning Poland. This document is USSR Exhibit 496. I am not going to read this whole document into the record because I do not want to propagandize the views contained in it, but I should like you to peruse the document, and I should like to ask you to peruse Extract Number 1, which is contained in this document, and it is underlined in red pencil. This refers to your evaluation of the Polish nation. I should like to simply ask you if that is your own statement.
AIt is impossible for me to recognize a radio speech of mine when I see an extract of only 20 lines, considering that I have spoken about 1,000 times, as I said yesterday. In that case, you will have to let me have the speech as such so that I can recognize the thoughts which I was talking about at the time.
QDid you examine this extract from the document? You have a com plete photostat of the document before you. This is a full text of your utterance which took place on 6 February 1940 at 1845 on Radio Station Danzig Sender.
AGeneral, we have twenty lines before us here. They begin with the words, "Considerable effort was necessary to --"
QThat is the document to which I am referring. I am asking you if that is your speech.
AIt is quite possible, but if you give me only twenty lines of that speech, then I can only confirm to you this: At the time I had seen the official German documents dealing with the atrocities committed against Germans in Poland, and with great disgust, I talked about that on the radio, talked about what I saw in those documents.
THE PRESIDENT:Shall we adjourn now?
DR.THOMA (Counsel for defendant Rosenberg): I ask you to grant leave for defendant Rosenberg to be absent from the Court this afternoon because I have an important conference to hold with him.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
(A recess was taken until 1400 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 28 June 1946) HANS FRITSCHE -- Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
QDefendant Fritsche, extracts from your speech dated 7 July 1941 will be handed to you. They concern the opposition which the German Fascist troops encountered whilst entering upon Soviet territory. This document has already been submitted by the defense.
Will you look at point 7, the last paragraph ? I do not intend to read it.
AYes, I have found the passage.
QVery well. Do you admit that you used those expressions ?
AYes, I admit that. I should like to emphasize, whithout quoting, the context with which this statement was made.
QVery well. I would like to ask you this. When, in your speeches, you call Polish and Russian peoples "under-people", when you insult them, don't you consider that these are expressions of mankind-hating theories ?
AMr. Prosecutor, I should like to assert that I never accused the Russian people or the Polish people of being inferior.
QVery well. I do not intend to argue about it, for the documents speak for themselves.
I would now like to turn anew to the statement of Hans Voss. This is document USSR Exhibit 471. Will you pay attention to excerpt number 2 ? It is underlined. It is just a short excerpt, and I will read it :
"Fritsche cleverly influenced the spirits of the Germans persuading them that they, the Germans, were a superior race and therefore must rule other peoples like their slaves."
Does that correspond to the facts ?
ANo, it does not agree with the truth; rather, it contradicts the truth on all points.
QLet's say it contradicts your assertions.
Very well,.I will put another question to you.
Do you know the name Lieutenant General Reiner Stahel, who was the former commandant of the town of Warsaw ?
ANo, I am not familiar with that name.
Q Very well. You will be handed a document -- Mr. President, this is document USSR-473, and it is the testimony of Reiner Stahel, dated 19 September 1941.
I will only read the first excerpt :
"Goebbels and Fritsche took every measure so that the racial theory should be rendered popular amongst the Germans, and to persuade them that the Germans are a superior race, and other peoples, as inferior races, must be subordinated to the German Master Race.
"In order to convince the Germans of this and to compel them to believe in this theory, the Ministry of Propaganda, led by Goebbels and Fritsche, published -- before the war and during the war -- a large number of films, books, papers and other literature in which the authors attempted to prove the superiority of the Germans over other nations.
"One must say that as a result of the activity of Goebbels and Fritsche the racial theory held a rather firm place in the conscience of a large part of the German people. This contributed to the fact that during the war the German soldiers and officers, having assimilated the instructions of the leaders of German propaganda, committed crimes against civilian populations."
Tell me, did Reiner Stahel adequately describe the part played by you in the propagation of racial theory ?
A. No, I should like to add that the niveau of this state-
ment is much lower than that of the other statements submitted to me. I should like to set forth the fact that of those whose testimony has been set down in this form, only one could be present in person here, so that he could present some of the data and proof upon which he based his statement.
Q.I believe that during the six months that the trial has lasted, you have heard enough testimony. We Will continue.
A.No, I shall have to make this observation. I have not been confronted with any testimony of witnesses dealing with those matter with which we are dealing now.
Q.You, I hope, remember the testimony of the witness Hoess regarding the extermination of millions of persons.
A. (No response).
Q.I say that I hope you remember the testimony of Hoess, the commander of the concentration camp in Auschwitz concerning the extermination of millions of people.
A.I did not forget this testimony, and not for a minute did it leave or escape my memory.
Q.Very well. I do not intent questioning you on this matter. I am passing on to questions connected with the propaganda regarding the preparation for agressive war by Hitlerite Germany. In order to shorten the cross-examination, I shall quote a few of your own statemtns dated 12th of September 1945, which have already been submitted to the Tribunal as USSR Exhibit 474. Please look at the second excerpt. It is underlined.
A.I object to the reading of this quotation, as well as I objected to the submission of the entire minutes as set down. In this case, I base my objection on the testimony that I gave dealing with the origin of this record.
Q.You already gave an explanation to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal will consider your explanation. This document is submitted, and I intend quoting part of the testimony. Please follow me.
"Excerpt No.2: In order to justify the facts of the aggres-
sion, Goebbels gave instructions to conduct a hostile campaign against Austria, particularly the instructions to find old material in the archives, and wanted to publish them in the press. Goebbels stressed that the document published must first of all prove that the Austrian people wish to unite to unite themselves with the German nation, and that the Aistrians adhering to these ideas were persecuted by the Austrian Government. Furthermore, Goebbels said that the German press must show that the Germans living in Austria were being systematically persecuted by the Austrian Government, which is carrying out mass reprisals against them.
"Later, during the occupation of Czechoslovakia, Denmark Poland, Belgium, Holland, Norway and the Balkan countries. I, following the instructions of Goebbels, organized--"
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko, surely it would be better to ask him with reference to one of these paragraph whether he said that, rather than to put to him the whole document at once.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Mr. President, I have only one paragraph left, and I intended reading it and then putting a question to him.
THE PRESIDENT:I am not objecting to that. I am only suggesting that it would be better if you put to him each paragraph in full, and not put three or four paragraphs all in one question.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Very well, Mr. President; I will do so. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.I ask you, defendant Fritsche, do you admit the excerpt read by me concerning the Anschluss?
A.No. And I must emphasize the fact that my testimony in that extract contains those parts which the interrogating Russian officer added concerning my testimony. The formulation was submitted to me when it was not quite completed, so that I could affix my signature to it.
THE PRESIDENT: What do you deny in it? Take the first paragraph.
THE WITNESS:Mr. President, I am protesting against everything, specifically the expressions used here. Those were not expressions which I would have ever used. In my interrogations at Moscow, I stated exactly the same thing as I stated here in this Court Room yesterday, the day before, and the day before that, or anything which I may nave set down in my affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT:Take the first paragraph. The first paragraph has just been read to you -- "in order to justify the facts of the aggression..." Were you asked any question about that, and did you make any answer?
THE WITNESS:Yes, indeed. In interrogations which Were held frequently and hold late at night, I was asked concerning those question, and I answered as follows the part here which was summarized in this question as put down in this paragraph:
At this moment I do not recall the data, but at the moment of the Austrian action I was summoned to Dr. Goebbels. Dr. Goebbels told me that the Austrian government of Schuschnigg had plans of such and such a nature, which plans have been described at length here, and that a government crisis was taking place. He told me further that Seyss-Inquart had taken over the government, that a call for help had come from Austria, and he told me also that the march would take place immediately.
THE PRESIDENT:Are you now telling us what you told the Russian interrogator, or are you telling us what actually happened in Germany at the time of the Anschluss?
THE WITNESS:I am telling those things which I told the interrogating Russian officer, and those are the things exactly as they took place in the propaganda ministry on the day in question.
THE PRESIDENT:You are saying, then, that this first paragraph is entirely made up, are you?
A. No; I would not wish to use the word "invented" or "made up", but I would rather say -- and I beg your permission to do so -- which parts or which elements are actually correct as set down in this paragraph.
First of all, there is the point that there was a hostile campaign against Schuschnigg, and this campaign actually was explained in the German press at the moment of his resignation, or just before his resignation.
I cannot, however, tell you that point just at the moment.
Furthermore, it is correst as it is set down in the para graph that the persecution of people who were sent to Germany under the Schuschnigg regime was to be pictured as single cases.
Those are the factors that are correct, and apply.
BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.This means that you have now corroborated what I have just read.
A.No, no, Mr. Prosecutor. There is an essential difference
Q.I understand, from your point of view. But I believe that you will not deny the fact that you conducted propaganda directed against the Austrian government.
This is the main sense of this question.
A.That I have to deny as well, and object to as well.
This propaganda was not conducted by me, but rather by me pre decessor, as I said, of the propaganda division of the German press.
Q.Do I understand correctly that you deny your personal participation in the propaganda, but do not deny the fact of the propaganda?
A.You did not understand me correctly if, by the term "propaganda" in this case, you mean enumerating of those measures used by the Schuschnigg government against the Germans.
Q.Very well. I should like to read another paragraph of your testimony which says:
"During the occupation by Germany of Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, Norway, and the Balkan countries, following the instructions of Goebbels, I organized a similar campaign of pro paganda.
In every case I selected those documents from the archives which compromised the governments of these countries and added to the stature of Germany, and attempted in this way to justify this or that actionon the part of Germany".Do you also deny this?
A.Yes, in that from I deny that as well.
Q.But you will not deny also that propaganda was conducted against all the countries enumerated in your testimony?
A.No, no. I would deny the last sentence that you added. I admit the fact of the propaganda. However, in the individual actions, I described my participation in detail in 3469-PS.
Q. very well; I understand. I do not intend questioning you further, as this has been quite adequately explained in your statement dated January 1646, Document 3469-PS, and which, in fact, do not contradict the actual facts. Is that ture?
A.I see an essential contradiction there. But this affidavit, 3469-PS, is completely accurate and true.
Q I would like as a supplement to this, read the testimony of Ferdinand Schorner which is document USSR Exhibit 472 and which has already been submitted to the Tribunal; I mean Extract No.3. He says in this statement, and I read : "The political activity of Fritsche in his function or radio commentator of the State, was subordinated to the main task of National Socialism to begin a world war against democratic countries and to contribute to the victory of German arms in every way.
The principal method of Fritsche which he utilized during many years of his activity, as I later understood, was the conscious cheating of the German people. I speak of that because, during the last years we soldiers felt that very sharply because contrary to the statements of Fritsche, we knew the actual forces on the front and also new the situation. The main guilt of such people as Fritsche is that they did know the actual state of things but after understanding this, basing this on the criminal intentions of the Hitlerite government, they consciously lied to the people or 'threw sand into their yes' to use a German expression." Does this characterization of German propaganda correspond to the truth, defendant Fritsche ?
AThat is complete nonsense and quite by accident I can prove a part of this statement. Mr. Schorner says that the activity of the war commentator, Dr. Dittmar, consisted in the starting of aggressive wars. General Dittmar spoke over the radio for the first time in the winter of 1943 and that is one point I should like to make. The second point I should like to make is the fact that I have never seen Mr. Schorner. I do not know him and I have never spoken to him and I should be very much surprised if he could be in a position to judge whether I deliberately or not deliberately at any time ever said anything that was not true but -- and this is the thing I have to add -- in the last few days of Berlin, I indirectly, through State Secretary, Dr.Naumann, received a report from General Fieldmarshal Schorner and I was instructed to use this report, to make use of it. It was this report that he was in Bohemia with an army which was intact and if he wanted to, for an unlimited period of time, he could hold this territory and he wanted us to have courage in Berlin, that he could even come to our aid. I don't know whether this statement actually was uttered by Schorner but I think it would pay to call General Fieldmarshal Schorner as a witness in this Court in order to ask him what the data and the basis of his judgment was.
Q The fact that you do not know Ferdinand Schorner is not a sufficient contradiction of this testimony, for you have yourself stated before this Tribunal that very many people knew you as an official representative of the government but, of course, you could not know everybody; is that right ?
AIf you will permit me, Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to call your attention to something which is illogical. Anyone who didn't know me can very well judge about those things that I said but he is not in a position to judge about those things, whether I made those statements in good faith or in bad faith. I am sure that you can differentiate between these two positions yourself.
QOf course, you speak of your personal participation but you do not deny the criminal character of German propaganda.
ACannot answer yes to the question in the way that you put it. Mr. Prosecutor, this morning I gave you a basis for questions which may be put to me about those things in which I assisted for historical presentation -when I tried to show where pure idealism was concerned and where there were wrong prerequisites; these things are now being confused.
QI am not putting questions on the basis which you gave me but upon the basis of documents which are at our disposal. I would like to ask you : Did you have documents concerning operation Gruen in Czechoslovakia; documents concerning the aggression against Poland, the aggression against Yugoslavia, and propaganda conducted in this respect ?
AThe data for the Case "Gruen" those are heard for the first time here but since, again, you are now trying to tie these measures in with propaganda measures, it is very hard for me to keep both of these matters separate. Perhape it will serve your purpose if I answer -- Neither in the case of Czechoslovakia nor in the case of Poland nor in any other case, did I know in advance about German attacks. I knew no more than an hour or two hours before the time they were announced to the German public.
QDid you say an hour or one hour and a half ?
AI do not wish to tie myself down to an hour or an hour and a half but I do recall that in the case of Russia, I had advance knowledge through Dr. Goebbels five or six hours in advance.
QVery well. You will be handed document USSR Exhibit 493. It is your radio speech connected with the aggression against Poland. This speech was made on the 29th.
of August. I was directed already beforehand to the ex-
planation of the reasons for the German attack on Poland and is dated the 29th of August. I do not intend reading it but the sense of this speech is that on the 29th of August you spoke of a series of unforeseen events which was imminent. Have you acquainted yourself with this document ?
AYes, indeed.
QYou do not deny that on the 29th of August 1939, you made this speech
ANo, that I don't deny. I should like to refer only to the fact --
QPlease answer my questions first and give your explanations later. This was on the 29th of August and you do not deny it.
ANo.
QWell, then, I ask you, did you personally believe in these explanations of imminent war with Poland, of the impossibility to prevent this war with Poland; did you believe this personally then ?
AWhether at that moment I considered the war to be unavoidable, that I am not in a position to tell you but I am able to tell you one thing. I did not believe that this was the case of German Guilt. If, in this period of tension, if a war-like conflict would result -- Please, Mr. Prosecutor, I should like to add this.
THE PRESIDENT :General Rudenko, letthe man answer.
THE WITNESS :At that time, it was a matter of great satisfaction to me that in the weeks that followed, in the Soviet press I could determine and find out that Soviet Russia and her government shared the opinion of war guilt, in the opinion of the German government. BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
QI believe that you should not say that now and I did not ask you in that sense. We will pass on to another question. On the 9th of April 1940, you made a speech concerning the reasons for a possible occupation of Norway. You will now be handed an extract from this speech.
GENERAL RUDENKO :Mr. President, this is document No.496. BY GENERAL RUDENKO :
QYou have that document, defendant Fritsche, It is excerpt No.4.
ANo, I don't have it before me.
A. (Continued) Yes, I have found it. It is page 4.
Q.Very well. I will read a short excerpt: "The fact that the German soldiers had to carry out their duty because the English broke Norwegian neutrality did not end in warlike but in peaceful action. No one was injured, not a single house was destroyed; life and daily work continued." This was a lie. Do you admit it or will you deny it?
A.No, that was not a lie, for I had just been in Norway and I had seen these things. Here everything will be quite obvious and clear if your will permit me to read the next sentence, which reads as follows -- the next sentence reads as follows -
Q.Defendant Fritsche, wait a minute -
THE PRESIDENT:General Rudenko, you just let the man explain. He wants to read the next sentence in order to explain this sentence.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Well, all right then. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.Please read it.
A.The next sentence reads as follows: "Even there, and when Norwegian troops gave resistance, instigated by the misled former Norwegian government." and so forth, "the civilian population was hardly touched thereby for the Norwegians fought outside the cities and villages," and so forth.
Q.Very well. Now I will show you a document which is an official report of the Norwegian government, which has already been submitted to the Tribunal by the French prosecution as RF Exhibit 72.
GENERAL RUDENKO:Mr. President, in the Document Book this document is wrongly numbered USSR Exhibit 78. It is Document PS 1800 and is submitted by the French prosecution as RF Exhibit 72. BY GENERAL RUDENKO:
Q.Listen, Defendant Fritsche, how correctly you described the situation in Norway; this is how the Norwegian government writes. I quote: "The German attack on Norway on the9th of April, 1940, brought war to Norway for the first time in 126 years. For two months the war was carried on throughout the country, causing destruction to the of 250,000,000 kronen. Further, more than 40,000 houses were damaged or destroyed and civilians were killed."