The Nuremberg Interviews (16 page)

“Because I want to make an end to all this tragedy. If one places the guilt of these tragic six years of war upon the wrong place, there will be always the germs of repetition, which will be kept alive, and perhaps another tragedy will befall mankind.”

I asked him what the investigation would show, in his opinion. “That there was false propaganda on both sides. For example, I find it tragic now that I didn’t believe various statements of the Allies that cruelties existed in Germany. The only reason for my not believing these statements was that I had heard so much false propaganda and lies from the very same broadcasting stations.

“I wrote down a sentence after our last conversation of a few days ago.” Fritzsche smiled in his usual wan manner and took out a slip of paper upon which he had written in German one of his quasi-philosophic notations. The translation from German roughly was as follows: “The principle of bad has caused so much damage to the world that no excuse can be made for it. But the greatest catastrophe of humanity was the creation of hatred and the belief which a man has that he is right and his opponent wrong.” I asked Fritzsche whether he would expound on this aphorism. He replied that what he meant was that fanaticism, whether it be for right or wrong, was ill-directed.

We went on to talk of the other defendants, a subject which always intrigued Fritzsche, because in a way it would appear that he felt somewhat distinguished by being included among cabinet ministers and other important persons, who during the war were mere names to him. “In the first place, there is the Hitler group, among whom are the most guilty of the defendants and about whom very little, if any, good can be spoken. By the Hitler group I include Goering, Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, Keitel, Rosenberg, Frank, and Streicher. Then there is the group which one might call idealistic. Then there is yet another group which one might label as indifferent. Unfortunately, too many of us were indifferent. Not many belonged to the idealistic group, and I don’t care to name them
because I think I would be stretching a point to call any of the defendants idealists. I feel that perhaps of all the defendants I was the only idealist, although I suffered from blindness and indifference myself. In this respect I am not like Speer, Schirach, and Funk. Schacht I consider an opportunist.

“That is the tragedy in the case of Schirach. It is the old matter of a feeling of dizziness which comes to a man when he stands at the height of power. I always had a very open eye for these things. Because my nature was completely strange to feelings of power, I always considered it a burden to decide on the fate of people — even such little things as whether they should be hired or discharged in my office.

“I, therefore, left those decisions in the hands of my deputies. On the other hand, I had a quite different favorite hobby. The most pleasing thing that I could do in my life was to ‘catch a soul’ — in other words, I could think of nothing better than to convince people and outtalk them. I never liked to speak in large public gatherings to simple, uneducated people, but I did enjoy lecturing before a professional group of journalists. There was no more satisfying feeling in my life than to convince such a group of people and have them say afterward, ‘Yes, you are right.’ I guess I have something of the Pied Piper of Hamelin in me. My friends always call me the soul catcher of Hamelin.”

I asked him about radio broadcasters for the Nazis, and what he thought of them. For example, did he know General Kurt Dittmar?
⁹
“General Dittmar was a wonderful man who was purely a military commentator and could be relied on to broadcast nothing but the truth. I know for a fact that for years Ribbentrop, Goering, and Goebbels wanted to do away with General Dittmar. But that came in my department and I held on to him. He was a lieutenant general, a soldier who had military staff duties, but in addition he was paid for the individual broadcasts which he made under the German networks. General Dittmar is now in English captivity and he said very recently during an interrogation that I had defended him constantly. But I will not bring that up in my defense. I will answer only the charges against me. I have many letters from Jews I saved — but the prosecution would say it isn’t a matter of the Jews who were saved but of the Jews who were killed, and the prosecution on that point is correct.

“I did one thing yesterday. I sent a cable to an English radio commentator. I had received a cable here in the prison from this commentator
and I asked him in my cable if he would give a statement about the nine hundred broadcasts I made during the war. I know an English commentator listened to my broadcasts constantly because he was sort of a personal opponent of mine over the radio. I want him to give a statement which I can use in court about the general line of his broadcasts. I don’t know him personally but I used to listen to him from London and he used to listen to me from Berlin.

“For the rest, I must wait and see which of the nine hundred broadcasts I made the prosecution will select and criticize me for. At the beginning I used to make a daily broadcast, then it became three times a week, and finally once a week. In the first year I had fifty thousand fan mail letters. Ninety percent of them were favorable and ten percent critical. I received many letters and telegrams from the United States. All of these were favorable. Many of these letters were very funny. For example, a Mrs. Halifax wrote me that she was forbidden to listen but she heard me for the first time and she liked my voice. And she was of the opinion that things in Germany would go wrong. She said in her letter that she had a yacht and she asked that I give up my job in Germany and tour the Pacific Ocean with her in her yacht. I wrote to her, saying that I should be glad to consider such a trip after the war, but not at the time. There were many such amusing anecdotes.”

“Sometimes I feel like screaming here in my cell. It isn’t just my life that’s ruined and frustrated. It’s my guilt to my family and to the German people as a whole.” He looks quite distraught as he says this, but there is also a patent element of pathos and bathos, and his words are always so well chosen, and neatly enunciated, with just the right amount of expressive dramatic quality.

Fritzsche said he wanted to continue to talk of the guilt for the war and the murder of the 5 million Jews. He mentioned that many Jewish journalists outside Germany made severe attacks on the Nazis, and that in a way caused new flare-ups of anti-Semitism within official Nazi circles. These men were not wrong, he pointed out, as history showed, but at the time they did utter false propaganda against Nazism, and this in a way caused the war and bitter anti-Jewish feeling. “But it is fully clear that it was not only the Jews who caused the war,” Fritzsche said.

“I’m no anti-Semite like Streicher, but I resisted the Jewish influence
in the press and theater. I was in favor of bringing Jewish influence to a percentage of strength, in accord with their relative numbers. I’m of the opposite theory today, since racial differences brought about 5 million murders. Therefore, any further racial policy is the intellectual groundwork for new murders.”

I said that I shared his present views. I remarked that it seemed highly dangerous to human liberties and life itself to oppress minorities. Fritzsche echoed these words and said: “In theory I had this as the basis of my life. Therefore I come back to a final conclusion — that nationalism must be fought. I don’t mean that internationalism is the answer, but excessive nationalism is fanatic.

“I hope you come to some conviction about whether or not I’m guilty. If you can imagine that here I am, a human being who has suffered more than a human should suffer — and that I have discovered findings which should be passed on to others.

“I don’t say these things to improve my chances in this trial. I know that my ideas are the only ones that must come out of these trials. I have a feeling I must stand up for misused German idealism.”

For some reason or other, Fritzsche turned to his favorite subject of betrayal. Erich Raeder’s case was on and perhaps that is what stimulated him again on this theme. “The
Athenia
sinking — when I broadcast that this was done not by our U-boats but by the British, I had Raeder’s word for it.
¹⁰
It was Raeder’s fault. He knew and Hitler knew it was a German submarine. Then Goering talked to me, telling me the same thing, and that is what I mean by misused German idealism. It was betrayal.”

He displayed his usual martyrish smile and said that he felt “down,” but less depressed than previously because of Schirach’s statement recently, which Fritzsche characterized as “the best thing that has come up yet in the trial.”

“The main thing about my depression is that I have a feeling of regret — and if one feels regretful, one necessarily feels guilty. As far as the indictment is concerned, accusing me of murder and inhumanity, I do not feel guilty. I don’t feel guilty because I was betrayed. But I feel depressed because this feeling of betrayal has no outlet. In other words, no one seems to understand that as my main tragedy — that I was used
as a tool for evil by Goebbels and others, and whereas I never did anything wrong personally, my actions indirectly led to the crimes of which I am accused.

“I feel guilty because I trusted and believed Hitler and Goebbels and other people who did not warrant such a trust. Because of this I could almost kill myself in desperation for what I did. Please don’t take me literally, because I would not commit suicide — it is just an expression which we Germans tend to use. But in reality, it is not a feeling of guilt but one of betrayal. It is a certain anger, so great you can’t imagine it. I often said that never in the history of the world did one man receive so much faith and trust as Hitler. Similarly, no one has ever betrayed so many people and abused so much good faith as he did.”

He was in a mood for discussing the other defendants, perhaps for the purpose of drawing a comparison between them and himself, although he did not directly compare them with himself. “All my comrades here I met for the first time, with the exception of Funk. Of course, I did see the others in public gatherings, but never really officially or personally.

“I can only say that I am recklessly frank and I’ve always made enemies because of this, even enemies now on the defendants’ bench.

“For example, take Streicher. He is often classified with me because he was a journalist and propagandist. I always thought him very dumb and a sexual pervert. Therefore, I denounced
Der Stürmer
in public, although never on the radio, but frequently before classes of 200 to 250 journalists in the political propaganda courses which I gave at the university. I can state this quite frankly.

“In my defense, I want to touch the story of my relationship to Streicher with only a single sentence. On two occasions I attempted to prohibit
Der Stürmer
because of pornography. Regarding the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
, I thought that to be a stupid invention.
¹¹
Those are the only things that I will bring out in my defense in that regard.

“I think that in former years Streicher was a very cruel man, because I had several experiences with journalists who had been whipped by Streicher here in Nuremberg. They had been placed in concentration camps and I was able to liberate them only through the help of Hess at that time. I also believe that there was more than a little truth to the charges of embezzlement which were rumored at that time. Today I think a trifle better of him. I think he is mainly stupid. The crime does not lie in him but in the man who gave him power — the Führer.

“I think that Streicher’s mind is slow but that he has a certain natural strength which causes him to be a fanatic. This type of dumb individual can often be used for fanatical purposes.”

I asked Fritzsche how
Der Stürmer
happened to obtain such a large circulation. He replied, “That is actually the work of the party. The party leadership never gave any official recognition to
Der Stürmer
. The ownership was not in the hands of a party publishing house. It was a strange phenomenon. I think it was extremely shrewd and purposeful planning on the part of the party leadership. Imagine a party, which in 1933 has only about 100,000 members, and suddenly within a few months has millions of members. There were only 5 million members actually admitted, but if the party so desired, it could have had 30 million members. And all these people were trying to become good National Socialists. The party said, ‘You can’t just become a National Socialist — you must fight for it.’ So the new ones looked for something which would prove that they were good National Socialists. They joined many organizations; as for example, the SA, the Women’s Organization, and even the Air Defense League. And so whether people liked it or not, they supported
Der Stürmer
and purchased it because that would prove they were good National Socialists.

“And at that moment when so many people wanted to prove they were good National Socialists, the rise of
Der Stürmer
began. There was a showcase which displayed copies of it in front of every public building, business, hotel, et cetera. In this way the hotel keeper, for example, could advertise that he was a good National Socialist. That, in my opinion, is the basis for the sudden rise of
Der Stürmer
. It soared from an edition of ten thousand to almost one million. Actually, the contents of
Der Stürmer
were taken more seriously abroad than in Germany itself.

“I admit, however, that
Der Stürmer
had a tremendous influence on public opinion after all. I am simply trying to point out that this influence was not as great as it is estimated abroad. I can judge that because I was a leading journalist. You know that we German journalists would never even shake hands with Karl Holz, who was the chief editor of
Der Stürmer
. He was despised. I never saw him personally because he never dared come to a press conference.”