Morning Session

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will sit on now until 1 o’clock without any interruption.

I have an announcement to make.

When counsel for the Defendant Hess first made his argument, the Tribunal directed that he should rewrite it and submit it for the Tribunal’s consideration, as he had continually disregarded the Tribunal’s directives that the alleged unfairness of the Versailles Treaty should not be argued.

The argument as now rewritten by Dr. Seidl has been carefully considered by the Tribunal. It still contains many allusions to the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty, irrelevant material, quotations not authorized by the Tribunal, and other matters which have nothing to do with the issues before the Tribunal. The Tribunal have, therefore, deleted the objectionable passages and have directed the General Secretary to hand a marked copy containing the deletions to Dr. Seidl.

That is all.

The Tribunal direct Dr. Seidl to get in touch with the General Secretary’s representative. He will then see the passages which the Tribunal consider objectionable.

Now, Dr. Fritz.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Yesterday afternoon I concluded my statement in response to the charge that the Defendant Fritzsche was guilty of a crime against peace.

The next group of accusations leveled against the defendant is, for instance, characterized by such terms as incitement against Jews, incitement against foreign nations, instigating the exploitation of occupied territories, propaganda for the master race.

On the witness stand, Fritzsche made a declaration which represents a summary of the knowledge he gained after the collapse and, above all, here in Court. It ran as follows: An ideology in whose name 5 million people were murdered must not be permitted to survive such a record. Now, to what extent did Fritzsche make propaganda for this anti-Semitism? Could he, by doing so, foresee the murder? Did he approve of it or at least accept it as inevitable? The Prosecution went very far in their assertions. They imputed that Streicher, as “the chief Jew baiter of all times,” could hardly have surpassed Fritzsche in his defamation of Jews. Fritzsche defended himself against this accusation, and rightfully in my opinion. A mere comparison of the slogans from the “arsenal of anti-Semitism,” which Sir Griffith-Jones read for hours from excerpts from Der Stürmer at the session of 10 January 1946, with Fritzsche’s statements submitted here by the Prosecution, shows this very clearly. Fritzsche, supported by the affidavit of Scharping, dated 17 May 1946 (Document Number Fritzsche-2), was able to point out what actions he undertook against this paper. It must also be noted here that the language and arguments of Der Stürmer found no echo in any German newspaper or at a single broadcasting station even of the National Socialist regime.

Before the war Fritzsche carried on no anti-Semitic propaganda of any kind. All utterances and statements of his submitted by the Prosecution originated during the war. They are, however, not directed against the Jews as a people or as a race, but are related only to the question of the origin of the war. They were merely casual, polemical remarks on the Jewish question in the propaganda battle which was fought in this war alongside the battle of arms. This explains the fact that the radio addresses submitted by the Prosecution never contain more than casual remarks, and never speak of the Jews alone. Every one of his radio speeches may be examined in this respect. Nor does there exist a speech by him which dealt exclusively with the so-called Jewish problem. He never undertook to talk on such a subject. Fritzsche always spoke, at the same time, of “plutocrats,” “bolshevists,” “democrats,” and used other such phrases by means of which the propaganda of the Third Reich felt obliged to conduct its fight. During his interrogation he dealt in detail with each of the radio addresses submitted in the Trial and discussed the reason he had each time for making his merely incidental remarks on this subject. An examination of all of his statements over the radio would show that of all the fundamental propaganda subjects of Nazi ideology, Fritzsche mentioned and advocated anti-Semitism least of all. This takes all foundation from the conclusion of the Prosecution. For there cannot be any connection between such occasional remarks on the part of Fritzsche and the murder order given by Hitler. I therefore expressly protest against the accusation that Fritzsche be considered more guilty than those men who carried out the shootings (Session of 23 January 1946).

In the course of this Trial we have heard much testimony as to what secret and ultrasecret means and methods were used by the really guilty ones to carry out this horrible murder. So many statements cannot be put aside as irrelevant and unreliable. In contrast with former assumptions, this Trial should have made it clear that there existed only a small group of instigators and abettors. It has not been proved, in the least, that a man like Fritzsche belonged to this closest circle of Hitler’s despotism. The Trial has even shown that he made the acquaintance of the majority of his codefendants only here in the dock. To draw such far-reaching conclusions against Fritzsche would necessarily lead to the assumption that everybody who took a public stand for anti-Semitism as such—if only with reservations—bears the same criminal guilt. The extent of the moral guilt is much greater. But we are concerned with it only insofar as the moral guilt is identical with the criminal guilt. And, therefore, there is no need to discuss here how far a mere error—even a political one—may at the same time become immoral. The accusation, however, of being coresponsible for these murders, was an especially deep blow to Fritzsche.

With regard to this it might be objected that, although Fritzsche did not maintain very close relations with his chief Goebbels and the other heads of the news service, he was yet one of those persons who had access to the foreign press and radio news. This is perhaps the reason why Fritzsche is accused of having had knowledge of almost everything that happened during Hitler’s rule. Fritzsche was able to state in the witness stand, while giving many details, that even with this opportunity his good faith was not shaken in the decisive—perhaps also moral—questions. Just as little as his profession as journalist gave him the opportunity to follow rumors up on his own, just so little in this way would he realize what was actually happening. The barriers which had been erected around the misdeeds, however, could not be broken down by him through these means.

With regard to foreign reports on atrocities and other misdeeds, Fritzsche, as well as Von Schirrmeister and, especially, Dr. Scharping, have stated that the examination by the office “Schnelldienst”—express news service—which was carried out in all cases, resulted time and again in official replies which eliminated doubts as to the inaccuracy of such statements from abroad. This office, the “Deutscher Schnelldienst”—German news speed service—which had an entirely different significance from that claimed by the Prosecution, was a control agency created especially by Fritzsche in order to have foreign news tested as to the truth of its contents through inquiry at the competent German official agencies. If the Defense had succeeded in submitting the records of this “Schnelldienst” to the Tribunal, documentary evidence could have been offered in every detail for the way in which German authorities answered inquiries of this kind. For instance, the Reich Security Main Office knew in a masterly and deceptive way how to make its replies sound credible. The foreign propaganda which was to serve a definite purpose could in comparison lay no claim to a greater power of persuasion—this all the more since the enemy propaganda in wartime also brought, of course, really incorrect reports, of which fact Fritzsche often felt quite convinced.

Furthermore, Fritzsche has been accused of advocating the doctrine of the master race. The only statement by Fritzsche himself which the Prosecution submitted in regard to this point shows clearly that Fritzsche neither championed nor promoted such an idea; that, on the contrary, he expressly rejected it. An examination of the quotation presented by the Prosecution does not leave any doubt about it. Beyond what the hearing of evidence—the witness Von Schirrmeister and the affidavit of Dr. Scharping—has shown as to how Fritzsche prohibited the use of the words master race for press and radio altogether, Fritzsche himself under oath termed this accusation nonsensical. Therefore, after thorough examination of all obtainable speeches by Fritzsche, I can only state that this charge is untrue. Nothing is changed in regard to this statement by the fact that Voss and Stahel (Documents USSR-471 and 473) judged differently without giving any concrete facts. I have already dealt with the value of those documents as evidence.

Fritzsche allegedly stirred up hatred against foreign peoples. To prove this serious charge the Prosecution emphasized several excerpts from two of Fritzsche’s radio addresses, which were held on 5 and 10 July 1941. In order to be able to understand correctly the circumstances underlying the speeches, one must take into consideration the dates on which they were held. They were made shortly after the attack on the Soviet Union. He is not charged with any further statements—made, for instance, at a later time—or similar ones which might lead one to suppose some systematic line of thought. When the passages cited by the Prosecution were supplemented by the full text of the speeches, and by the examination of Fritzsche on the witness stand, it was shown that Fritzsche did not slander the peoples of the Soviet Union. Neither could what had led up to these speeches have given him any reason to stir up hatred against that country. They were held shortly after German sources, and in particular war correspondents, had reported atrocities in towns in Galicia which had been conquered by German troops. These were things which were reported everywhere in Germany—and also by foreign correspondents—in print, pictures, and motion pictures. In this respect, there was an especially great volume of material, and in his speeches Fritzsche expressly referred to it. Fritzsche’s statements reflect the agitation of the German public over these reports, and he pointed to those presumed to be guilty of the atrocities. The facts, as such, were also confirmed by the Russians. The latter added, however, that not the Russians but the Germans were guilty of these actions. What happened was only that, on the basis of undeniable facts, a controversy had flared up as to the responsibility—just as happened later in the famous case of Katyn—in which both sides morally condemned the instigators.

In neither of those speeches, as an examination of their entire contents would reveal, did Fritzsche designate entire nations as inferior or subhuman. His phrases about subhumanity referred only to those culprits whom in real indignation he pilloried as morally contemptible. He found it reasonable to believe the proofs presented by the Germans, and, therefore, there is no reason to assume that, at the time he held the speeches, he could have predicted what actually was to happen in the East much later. Therefore, there could not have existed any intention on his part to stir up his audience to engage in similar actions. It is impossible to establish any causative connection on the basis of two such words he had once spoken.

The same is true of the excerpts from a speech of 29 August 1939, which General Rudenko read to him during his cross-examination (Document USSR-493). That broadcast also refers to atrocities committed shortly before the outbreak of the war in Bromberg, and concerning which, on the day of the speech—that being the reason for it—an official White Book had been published. It contained a short account of the results of an investigation of those atrocities. Only the guilty ones were designated by Fritzsche as inferior human beings. But it is not justifiable today to generalize this opinion to such an extent, as if he had designated the entire Polish nation as inferior. Fritzsche considered the representation in the official White Book as correct. He could not have doubted the fact that Poles had killed Germans. However, no word in that speech allows for the conclusion to be drawn that he envisaged the possibility or even suggested that the Slavic nations be exterminated. Fritzsche no more than the German people could imagine anything like it at that time.

General Rudenko attempted in his cross-examination to prove that my client had made false statements. For that purpose an excerpt from his broadcast of 2 May 1940 was presented to him (Document USSR-496, Session of 28 June 1946). This is the example I mentioned before as proof of the insufficiency of such evidence in general. In it Fritzsche gives a description of the towns, villages, and hamlets in Norway which he had visited shortly before, and which had been spared by the war. The Russian prosecutor pointed to the official report of the Norwegian Government (Document 1800-PS) enumerating the damages caused by the war. Thus the impression was created that Fritzsche had lied to his audience. The full contents of that speech show, however, that the quoted sentences regarding undamaged houses in Norway stand directly next to other sentences in which Fritzsche himself depicts the destruction caused by the fighting in Norway. The speech does not contain a lie if Fritzsche reported in it that in other parts of the country he visited not the slightest trace of fighting was found. His description, therefore, is not in the slightest contradiction to the Norwegian Government report.

At this point, I should like to insert a few remarks about the case of the Athenia, and the part that Fritzsche played in this connection. This case shows to what extent Fritzsche was at pains not to retransmit reports until they were proved to be true and reliable. But it shows, also, how dependent Fritzsche was on the version of the official German offices. This is evidence of his good faith; for it seemed natural to him, and he took it for granted, that official announcements were to be accepted without questioning, and this conviction could not, at that time, be shaken.

That particular article in the Völkischer Beobachter, dated 23 October 1939, has been rightly described in this Trial by all parties as contemptible. Now, Fritzsche also engaged in polemics on this point in sharp although not similar terms. I take the liberty of pointing out that such remarks could be morally condemned only if Fritzsche had known beforehand that it was actually a German submarine which sank the Athenia, but, as he has testified under oath, this fact first became known to Fritzsche here in Nuremberg, in December 1945. Up until then, he was the very person from whom this decisive circumstance was withheld although he had, through the naval liaison officer, undertaken investigations at the High Command of the Navy, and other official offices within the Ministry of Propaganda, concerning the assertions made in foreign reports.

To support the charge that Fritzsche instigated the ruthless pillage of the occupied territories (Session of 23 January 1946), the only evidence submitted is a statement made on 9 October 1941. In this, a passage from a public speech made by Hitler a few days before is reproduced. I have taken the greatest pains to find any instigation for the ruthless pillage of occupied territories in this quotation, or in the remarks made by Fritzsche about it in his radio address. It is impossible for me to see how any one sentence can possibly convey anything to this effect. I can only assume that it is a case of a misunderstanding and leave it for the Tribunal to judge. In no other connection has Fritzsche spoken a word or given a hint to this effect and, least of all, openly called for such a thing. Moreover, it is to be gathered from Dr. Scharping’s affidavit, dated 17 May 1946 (Document Fritzsche-2), that the use of any kind of coercive means against other nations would have run counter to the purpose of his whole work, including that within the Ministry of Propaganda—namely, to gain the voluntary co-operation of the European peoples.

It has also not been proved that Fritzsche really knew about the manner in which foreign workers were actually recruited. I would point out that the Defendant Sauckel stated that he had only one brief and unofficial talk with Fritzsche, and that in the beginning of 1945. In his affidavit Fritzsche further gave exhaustive details on the fact that he obtained extensive material from competent authorities to be brought to the attention of the German public, and in which the voluntary character of the recruitment of workers for employment in Germany was continually pointed out. It is not to be assumed that any information concerning this was given to the Ministry of Propaganda other than that provided by Sauckel in his report to Hitler (Document 407-PS).

Moreover nothing has proved that Fritzsche approved, or even used for propaganda purposes, the violations of international law already committed or intended, such as the so-called Commissar Order, or the lynching of enemy aviators who had been brought down. With regard to the Commissar Order, the Russian Prosecution charged that the defendant, as a soldier, a member of the 6th Army, received knowledge of this decree. This has been confirmed by Fritzsche. He could, however, point out that his attitude had not only been passive; he even, and this must be said, took a successful stand against this by way of proposals to his commander-in-chief, the witness Paulus (Session of 12 February 1946). General Rudenko’s charge that in spite of this he remained in Hitler’s service—although he should at least have assumed that Hitler was the author of such an order contrary to international law—is not a reason for accusing Fritzsche as a propagandist, or even as far as his ethics are concerned. Gentlemen, if such an accusation with a criminal legal foundation could be made, it would affect every German soldier who fought on for his fatherland in the East after the autumn of 1942.

Fritzsche also protested against the fact that Allied fliers were to be treated contrary to international law. When he learned this, he spontaneously refused any propagandistic activity for Goebbels in this respect. These facts have been definitely ascertained through thorough examination of him on this subject and through Dr. Scharping’s affidavit (Document Number Fritzsche-3).

Furthermore, no charges can be made from what he said in his radio speeches, about the use of new weapons and the Werewolf movement with which he has been charged by the Russian Prosecution on cross-examination (Document USSR-496). I can be spared mentioning particulars in this connection because Fritzsche testified in detail. The speech of 7 April 1945 (Document USSR-496), with which he is reproached, does not in the least glorify forms of warfare contrary to international law. It rather attempted to find a psychological reason or excuse for the active participation of civilians in the fighting toward the end of the war by referring to the suffering of the German people through the effective air warfare of the Allies.

I still have one point of the evidence to refer to. General Rudenko submitted to Fritzsche a short document at the end of his cross-examination (Document USSR-484). It is a copy of a short message, signed by Fritzsche, dated 19 October 1944, addressed to Major Von Passavant, a wireless expert of the Propaganda Branch of the OKW. The Russian Prosecution wish to conclude from the contents of this communication that Fritzsche had committed himself in the preparation and execution of some kind of “biological war.” Such a conclusion cannot possibly be drawn from the contents. It is merely a covering message of five lines referring to the transmission of a letter of a radio listener to another department. Fritzsche’s department received daily whole stacks of letters from unknown radio listeners. A subordinate official looked through such letters, of which hundreds arrived daily, and directed them wherever they would perhaps receive special consideration. The letter of the radio listener Gustav Otto, from Reichenberg, which apparently contained a suggestion to carry out biological warfare, followed exactly the same route. Although Fritzsche, in his capacity of department chief, signed the transmitting letter composed by the subordinate official, he naturally did not know anything about the contents of the listener’s letter. In view of the large number of daily communications from listeners, it was completely impossible for him to read them. This listener’s letter, in any case, did not receive any special attention in the broadcasting department. The copy of the transmitting letter, as can be seen from pencil notes made thereon, was also immediately filed. How can anything unfavorable be deduced against the Defendant Fritzsche from this sort of evidence? Especially as it is completely unknown what the unknown listener meant by a “biological war.”

Finally, I have yet to point out the following. General Rudenko read the document on the occasion of the cross-examination (Volume XVII, Session of 28 June 1946), and from a Russian text; the German text, which appears in this form in the German transcript, and the English text, which appears in this manner in the English record, differ considerably in content from the original German text. If notwithstanding the insufficiency of this document—the meaning of which could in any case be clarified only by the appendices which are lacking—the Tribunal believe it deserves consideration, the first requirement would be to have exact translations made from the original German text.

In concluding my evaluation of evidence, I wish to say that none of the documents brought up during the cross-examination of the Defendant Fritzsche could modify the impression which he gave us during direct examination—that is, his having spoken sincerely and truthfully before this Tribunal, and that because of his own desire also to make every possible contribution on his part so that an actual foundation for a proper judgment may be found. And going even further, all the statements made by Fritzsche were supported in all decisive points by the documents which I submitted, and particularly through the testimony of the witness Von Schirrmeister. The latter, who during the most important period between 1938 and 1943 was the daily companion of Goebbels, was able to report directly, and, I dare say, with great clarity, on the true conditions in the Ministry of Propaganda. The result of the evidence—I may repeat here what I expressed in my introduction—was unequivocal for my client.

Contrary to the announcement made by Mr. Albrecht, which I mentioned at the beginning of my final pleading, nothing during the proceedings could corroborate the contention that Fritzsche’s importance in reality was greater than that shown in the diagram of the Ministry of Propaganda. The discussion of the bare facts alone ought to have made clear that Fritzsche can bear no responsibility for what is the actual part that may have been played by the extensive propaganda machinery of the Third Reich in the plans which were in the hands of a small initiated circle. If the restricted department in which Fritzsche worked was misused, then Fritzsche himself was misused. The assumption that Fritzsche was Goebbels’ closest collaborator, his right-hand man, so to speak, and even his acting deputy—an assumption from which the bulk of the accusations leveled at him are probably derived—is refuted by facts which have come up for discussion. The odium against Fritzsche, on the alleged ground that he bears a responsibility equal or similar to that of Goebbels, has already been definitely shown by the evidence to be unfounded. Even from the dealings and actions themselves of my client it ought to have become clear that the assertions of the Prosecution have gone much too far.

In the legal consideration of those acts and dealings of Fritzsche by Captain Sprecher, it was quite striking that—as far as I can see, at only one point and here, too—as distinct from the other defendants was the quite general conclusion drawn that Fritzsche was, during a definite period, a principal conspirator because he was directly entrusted with the manipulation of the press (Session of 23 January 1946). I need not mention again at this point that the factual prerequisites for such an opinion did not exist. Now I am only concerned with establishing, with regard to the legal qualification by the Prosecution themselves, that in discussing his case his activity will be judged only in the sense of forms of participation.

The Indictment points out in several places (23 January 1946 a. m.) that Fritzsche had been called to account by this Court because of aiding and abetting. He is characterized as an accomplice of Goebbels; he is said to have assisted in producing propaganda material, helped create an atmosphere of hatred, lent support, et cetera; whereby it becomes obvious that he could not have been one of those who did the planning. On the other hand, it is also said of this defendant that he was an active instigator and inciter and that, therefore, he stirred up and aroused people’s passions. The first question now is: Does the accessory also belong to the participators within the meaning of Article 6 of the Charter? This question, it seems to me, has not yet been discussed by Dr. Stahmer; but the case of Defendant Fritzsche offers an opportunity for this because by the Prosecution themselves he has been characterized only as an accomplice. I am, therefore, compelled to give the question closer scrutiny.

The four concepts, leader, organizer, instigator, and participator, are presented as being equally important. Perpetrators coming within these four possibilities are also to be dealt with equally. These four concepts, insofar as they differ textually, can consequently only explain in what different forms a plot can be fashioned. One person instigates, the other organizes, another leads the gang, still another takes part in the plot in some other way. Therefore, all four concepts are closely connected with the common plan. They are united only because of the common plan. Only that makes them true accomplices. To make plans jointly, to want jointly to carry something out, that is the primary concept ruling these four secondary concepts. Only the functions in themselves may, of course, be different. They can also be divided by the conspirators themselves. If the conspirators have jointly invented the plan, have formulated it or, by agreement, have merely furthered it, then it should be of no consequence which part each one of them plays in its execution. It should, therefore, also be basically unimportant whether within this plot someone is the leader, the inspirer, or merely another participant in the plan. But, everyone presumably must be a party to the plan. At least, he must have recognized its purpose, for according to the words of the Charter, he must have participated in it, and that either (a) in the formulation, or (b) in the execution—but only of a common plan—or (c) in some other conspiracy for the commitment of an individual crime. Only then is he responsible for others when in the execution of such a common plan someone commits a crime. The word “accomplice” refers therefore to the plan. He is an accomplice in the plan, and is in no respect different from the leader or instigator. A wider meaning in an accessory sense must therefore be not far removed from this concept.

In common law, the concept of accomplice as a guiding principle has also an altogether different meaning than accessory. By accessory, according to the prescriptive legal conception, only one of the forms of complicity is understood, and that is the form by which a deed by another person is only supported or furthered, a deed which the accessory does not exactly want to be his own; it means the mere support of the main deed. Article 6, last paragraph of the Charter, cannot have such a meaning. There the participant is to be put on an equal basis with the accomplice, whereas in common law the accessory, as subordinate participant, can never be accomplice in a punishable deed. In common law the assistants are merely accessories. It cannot have been the intention of the creators of the Charter to regard the mere accessory as participant in the plan; for whoever participates in a plan is to answer fully for the deeds of others, even if he has only subordinately participated in the formation of the plan. But if the opposite is true, then it must follow that whoever does not participate at all in the formation or discussion of a common plan can therefore not be charged with full responsibility for what others have done. It is thereby immaterial whether the others committed a crime in the execution of a plan or only incidentally upon the occasion of its execution. The responsibility of the one for the deeds of the other can only exist when the plan binds them together. It is for this reason that the concept of conspiracy presupposes of necessity the idea that what is being done takes place under the impulse of a common will and a common knowledge in relation to the plan.

This description of participation as restricted to the plan is, in my opinion, expressed also in other parts of the Charter. In Paragraph 1—and not only in Paragraph 6, Section 1—it is stated that in execution of the Four Power Agreement of 8 August 1945, at first the “principal war criminals,” the “principal culprits,” the “principal conspirators,” should be called to account here before this Court. Assistants, accomplices, simple agents of execution, and all other merely dependent, accessory perpetrators who do not belong to the central body—that is to say, who are not connected with the conspiracy plan or in closer agreement for the carrying out of a single crime—cannot be considered as belonging to such a group. Within the meaning of conspiracy and the responsibility of the one for the other connected with it, there can be no simple “helpers” at all.

As concerns the Defendant Fritzsche, I have demonstrated that—if only due to his position in the State and the Party structure—he can neither belong to the restricted group of conspirators nor to the wider group of the organizations. Moreover, Captain Sprecher has himself pointed out (Session of 23 January 1946) that Fritzsche is not represented by the Prosecution as the type of conspirator who would have thought out the all-comprehensive strategy, that his particular field lay even outside the framing of the plan; but that it was not necessary for him to have correctly understood the basic strategy—to have perceived the aim when he was the spokesman of the conspirators. I believe that this conclusion, if the concept of “participator” within the meaning of the conspiracy is rightly estimated, contains an error of thought. He of whom it is said that he even stood outside those who made the plan definitely does not belong to the group of conspirators.

After these legal arguments, which are even supported by the opinion of the Prosecution, I come now to this conclusion: The Defendant Fritzsche, against whom it has not been proved here that he took part in any common planning, can on this account not have been a participator in the alleged conspiracy. At any rate, he cannot be punished according to Article 6, last paragraph of the Charter. According to the underlying conceptions of the Charter there should be somewhere a limit fixed concerning the indictment of an individual person in these trials. When is someone still an accomplice, and when is he no longer that but only a tool or accessory? Where is this boundary through which the responsibility for one’s own deeds can be separated from the responsibility for what others have done? Because there must be a dividing line for this collective responsibility also. I think the common plan constitutes this dividing line. He who does not belong to those who do the planning must also be left out of the group of conspirators.

On the other hand, the framers of the Charter provided for the possibility (a) of pronouncing an individual culprit a criminal even though he does not belong to the group of conspirators, and (b) of declaring an organization as such a criminal organization.

If the Defendant Fritzsche does not belong to the group of conspirators and, as is definitely established, was never a member of even one of the organizations being prosecuted here, he could be convicted only if he as an individual had committed crimes as covered by Article 6, Paragraph 2(a) to (c) of the Charter. In that case, however, just as in any ordinary criminal procedure, the Prosecution must furnish proof of a criminal offense. If he does not belong to the conspiracy, if he does not belong to an organization, the Prosecution cannot rely on a so-called legal assumption, an assumption which is supposed to result from the mere membership in an organization. It is not possible to reverse the evidential proof. The second question then is: Did Fritzsche, as an accomplice or abettor, belong to the class of those criminals of whom it has been proven that they as individuals committed crimes against peace, violations of law governing warfare, or crimes against humanity? He as an individual is not charged with committing any one of these crimes with his own hands. The charge is directed against him only by reason of his activity as an accessory.

As far as I can see, the concept of the accessorial accomplice is not foreign to English and American criminal law.^[6] However, common law is governed by the principle that the accessory falls into the same class as the accomplice, in other words, that, irrespective of the measure of his personal culpability, he should be punished, in principle, just like the perpetrator. It seems that at all times English law was inclined to apply the principle of equal punishment for perpetrator and accessorial accomplice.^[7]

The reason for referring here to English common law is merely in order to establish a link with the German concept of law. It is, therefore, sufficient to establish at present that English and American law also differentiate between the concept of a perpetrator and that of a mere accessorial accomplice. On that point, therefore, a decisive difficulty arises, resulting from the fact that there is a difference in the concept of right and wrong between the Prosecution and the defendants. The concepts are bound to be different because their statute law is not the same. That is the reason why I cannot as yet conclude my legal argumentation. Differences in conceptions, although familiar to both legal spheres, result in entirely different legal inferences as far as statute law is concerned.

The British chief prosecutor (Session of 4 December 1945 a. m.) referred to the individual responsibility of each single defendant according to the meaning of Article 6, Section 2(a) to (c) of the Charter. In that connection he remarked that it is a commonplace in common law that persons who help a criminal and shield him, who give advice and help to a criminal, are criminals themselves. By stating this he possibly represented the view that, according to the spirit of the development of English law, such persons, by reason of their complicity in someone else’s deed, must be punished in the same manner as the main perpetrator—that is, the accessorial quality of the accomplice, if I understood Sir Hartley Shawcross correctly, is in principle of no importance even with respect to common law. In practice this might mean that a legal distinction between accomplices and accessories plays no part here, or at best might determine the degree of the respective responsibility for the measure of the individual guilt. Is the one who merely supports the deed of someone else to be judged, in principle, in exactly the same way as the one who wants the deed to be carried out as his own? I may refer to the effects which such an interpretation could have on the measure of punishment for example.

At this point it might be in order to say this: the legal maxim propounded by Sir Hartley Shawcross may indeed be commonplace for every adherent to the English and American law, but this does not hold true for a German defendant. As I also infer from the argument of the French prosecutor, Dubost, this does not seem to hold true for French common law, either, because he pointed out that, according to the principle of penal law, strictly speaking, none of the defendants could in that case be considered as main perpetrators but merely as accomplices. And because the confines of common law concepts are too narrow, it is the opinion of the French Prosecution that the deeds which are to be adjudicated here are not equal to common law with its rationalistic statics, that it would be necessary to apply a law which goes beyond this (Session of 1 February 1946 a. m.). The concept of conspiracy, therefore—the science of the plot (Komplottlehre)—and the possibility to declare an organization criminal, are to be the vehicle by means of which it will be possible to go beyond common law.

However, how about the case of a defendant who does not belong to the conspiracy nor to an organization? After all, law is to be applied! This then leaves nothing but common law for judging the individual deed. Which law is otherwise to be applied for such general concepts as for instance, guilt, intent, negligence, but also for the accessorial quality of the accomplice? It is possible that through the establishment of new facts, the Charter created new substantive law. But what is the juridical concept with which to approach these new facts? The classification of the actual circumstances of a case will probably have to be made only by means of the analogy of penal law concepts. With regard to the facts of the case listed in Articles 6(b) and (c) of the Charter, these correspond essentially with the facts of a case in common law. A defendant as an individual who did not take part in drawing up the plan, and who did not belong to an organization, can then be judged only according to principles which also must apply for every other delict of common law. If concepts such as, for instance, an accomplice who acted as an accessory are involved, argumentation against a defendant can take place according to common law only.

German legal ethics have had to face the most complicated legal problems, particularly in connection with the doctrine of the forms of participation; in other words, with the question as to how an accessory should be classified according to the various possibilities of participation. From this in particular results the decisive question: Is it possible that the Charter went so far—I repeat, what is involved are common law concepts—as to prohibit taking into account the deep-rooted legal concept of those accused here in judging an accomplice who acted as an accessory? Is it possible that it entirely ignored even the completely different structure of statute law?

In view of the utterly different nature of statute law, especially with reference to the question of accessorial assistance, I ask permission to make a few remarks on the legal dogmatic conception of German law. In all fairness, and at least as far as the concept of an accessorial accomplice is concerned, a German defendant can be charged only with what is known to the concept of law adopted by his people and which, at the same time, is in keeping, morally, with his sphere of knowledge. That is the decisive point!

By reason of the provisions of statute law in Paragraph 49 of the Reich Penal Code, there is not only a strict separation between the accomplice and the perpetrator, as far as the concept is concerned, but necessarily, and as a matter of principle, he is also to be punished less severely than the perpetrator himself. Jurisprudence and the administration of justice, therefore, have made a sharp distinction between the perpetration of an act itself and the mere abetting or support of somebody else’s act by the accomplice. This distinction, is made not only in accordance with external characteristics, objective factors, but also with regard to what occurs in the mind, and thus with subjective factors. During decades of German administration of justice, particularly that of the Reich Supreme Court, this is expressed in such a way that, in the case of assistance in somebody else’s action, the accessory is said to have the animus socii, but the perpetrator himself the animus auctoris. According to German law the assistance seen from the exterior—that is, according to objective factors—is only a furtherance and support of the action of the principal perpetrator; the accessory must have helped to bring about success by his support.^[8] If he has not helped to bring about this success, then he is not an accessory—then his action is not punishable.

Concerning the mental side of the deed, the intent, the will of the accessory animus socii must be directed to the end that somebody else’s action is supported with his knowledge. And so when judging what is going on within the mind of a perpetrator, German law also makes a sharp distinction between will and knowledge.^[9] And this discrimination is furthermore decisive as to whether somebody has given assistance at all.

I have stated before what Fritzsche could have known about plans or their execution from his duties. Only if it has been proved that he had a definite knowledge and will as an accessory to the plans, could he be convicted. It would also have to be investigated in the case of the Defendant Fritzsche whether what he knew and wanted in connection with an alleged furtherance is identical with what someone, as a principal perpetrator of a crime, then actually did. Only when the knowledge and intent of both agree, can there be question of an accessory at all. In this connection, it is to be emphasized that a vague knowledge, a very general intent, is not sufficient to establish the state of being an accessory. The accomplice must be concretely aware of the elements of a plan which another is to carry out in accordance with his intention.^[10]

The Prosecution, however, also charge Fritzsche in various points with instigating specific crimes as an accessory. And so the third question is: Has Fritzsche been the instigator of any single crime?

At the beginning of these legal statements, I already referred to the details of Captain Sprecher’s prosecution speech (Session of 23 January 1946). To me it is doubtful if here the concept of instigation is meant in the legal-dogmatic sense of common law. The concept of incitement is used essentially to the extent that it corresponds to the German legal concept of mere invitation (Aufforderung). This charge of instigation can only be raised insofar as it can be said to concern the individual responsibility of Fritzsche for a specific crime mentioned in Article 6, Paragraph 2(a) to (c). The assumption that Fritzsche was a possible instigator to a common plan within the group of conspirators cannot be substantiated, in any case, in accordance with what I have already explained earlier. Instigation as an accessory form of participation in the general legal sense presupposes, however, contrary to the case of an accomplice in which, a criminal will is only to be supported or maintained, that such a will must first of all be produced in the perpetrator. The psychological influence does not consist in affirming or strengthening the intention of the individual who has already decided to carry out the deed, as in the case of the accomplice, but in first producing or creating the will for the deed.^[11]

The means for this can be of the utmost variety, but the perpetrator must be brought to change his ideas in that direction.^[12]

Assistance and instigation as accessorial forms of participation correspond to one another, in that also in the case of instigation a conscious and causative connection, also willed by the instigator, must exist between his instigation and the decision of the perpetrator. The principle of equivalence is valid just as in the case of assistance. The perpetration of a deed must correspond with the conception and the will of the instigator. The instigator is therefore only responsible to the extent of his intention. A possible excessus mandati cannot be attributed to him. From this stems the accessoriness not only of assistance but also of instigation.

The evidence has not furnished the slightest proof in the Fritzsche case that he has committed an individual crime as instigator through his transmission of news; there is not the slightest evidence to show that he has instigated a single person to murder, cruelties, deportations, killing of hostages, massacre of Jews, or other crimes mentioned in the Charter, or had, as instigator, caused a single crime by his speeches to the public. Not a single passage from his nearly 1,000 wireless speeches could be produced from which such individual responsibility could be deduced. That was not possible with public speeches, anyway. The crimes which were committed were carried out by people completely indifferent to Fritzsche’s propaganda. They received their impulses or instructions from altogether different sources. Were not these deeds to be kept secret? The official news service was to avoid handling this as much as possible. As this Trial has shown in a particularly impressive manner, the perpetrators took the greatest pains to limit the knowledge of, for example, the annihilation of the Jews to a very small circle. What was self-evident with every other state constitution—namely, that occurrences throughout the country should be handled through the press—was not permissible in our dictatorship. The people were not to be asked whether they approved such occurrences. The crimes, established by this Trial, were not to be given any publicity. Can one assume that under such circumstances the press and the radio were suitable means to instigate the perpetration of crimes? Is it not more probable that such occurrences were specially kept secret from the press and the radio? For not a single case—even though the speeches of Fritzsche may have had a marked tendency—can it be said that he, through public speeches of all things, could have instigated a single individual to commit punishable deeds.

Possibly the juridical indications of the Prosecution do not go so far. The Prosecution will then reproach Fritzsche for his contributing to an “atmosphere of hate” (Session of 23 January 1946). Only through such propaganda was it at all possible for gruesome crimes as these to be committed in Germany. This reproach, however, is legally irrelevant. This charge would have legal importance only if the Defendant Fritzsche had been among the group of so-called conspirators, if he had been the instigator of a common plan. I believe I have proved that this absolutely does not hold true. If he had actually created an “atmosphere of hate,” this would not, outside of the group of conspirators, have enabled him from a legal point of view to instigate anyone to commit certain crimes. Furthermore, according to the provisions of the German penal law, exhortations disseminated by radio would even exclude the fact of an instigation in a criminal sense. According to German jurisdiction, as practiced for decades, an instigation would legally be impossible because the influence exerted could not have been centered on a certain individual. Furthermore, German law concerns itself merely with instigation to commit a concrete deed and not with an instigation to commit punishable actions in general.^[13] In principle, therefore, any sort of exhortation directed toward a group of persons individually undefined, does not constitute an accessory instigation; it is rather outside the framework of legal relevancy altogether.

It is quite self-evident, however, that Fritzsche’s radio addresses were perforce directed to an entirely unlimited number of persons. Inasmuch as he was seriously striving to find for the German press and radio propaganda a “foundation based on truth,” could he have had the intention at all to instigate to criminal actions? My client admitted in an impressive and unequivocal manner that he followed the tendency of the official German policy in his news reports and comments. In other words, he did not take advantage of the fact that international law did not place him under any restraint, and nothing in the evidence submitted has refuted his good faith. However, in the light of the law, when it is concerned with incitement to complicity, or with assistance given as an accomplice, good faith is equivalent to lack of will and lack of purposefulness.

This establishes: 1) That the Defendant Fritzsche did not belong to the scheming group of conspirators; 2) that he was never, at any time, a member of a group or an organization which is to be declared criminal here; 3) that for factual and for legal reasons, he is not personally guilty of a war crime or a crime against humanity, neither as an accomplice nor—according to the law—as an instigator, and not even—also according to the law—as an assistant.

And so, I believe I have sufficiently discussed the question of evidence and the legal conclusions to be drawn therefrom.

It is necessary, though, to mention one other thing. The Fritzsche case also has its human aspect. Apart from the pros and cons of the legal potentialities, another obvious question must not be left unanswered: Can it be directly attributed to Fritzsche, as a human being, that he had knowledge of or was co-originator of all the horrors which came to light in this Court?

In the sense of the Indictment, he is an instrumentum dolosum in the hands of the conspirators—of whom Goebbels was perhaps one—who had knowledge of their aims and purposes. Fritzsche’s measures and utterances, however, were not dictated by criminal will. During his examination before this High Tribunal, Fritzsche never put forward the argument of superior orders. But he added that as far as his own person is concerned he was never expected to do anything criminal. And he furthermore declared: No one was obliged to feel compelled to carry out a criminal order. Undoubtedly, Fritzsche sacrificed his own convictions and made many a compromise. This, however, he did not do where he thought he discovered injustice, violence, and inhumanity. As is fitting to a journalist, he examined with care whatever reports reached him from abroad. Despite personal danger such as beset those who would penetrate the veil of secrecy, he followed the news which came from within Germany itself. He did not permit himself to be put off with paltry, vague explanations. He reported many details. I merely refer to his visits to Glücks, Heydrich, and his investigations in the Ukraine.

Wherever he learned about criminal plans, such as the Commissar Order and the inhuman plan to revenge the air bombardments on Dresden, he opposed them with determination, in the latter case even with the help of a foreign ambassador. And he was successful, too, as these two conspicuous examples show. He did this because he followed the voice of his conscience. He did not first engage in lengthy deliberations as to the pros and cons. With regard to the Commissar Order he merely had heard of it as a soldier—he had never read it, nor did he know whether it actually was carried into practice at any time—and he at once raised a protest. When Goebbels ordered him to announce a mass murder of Allied fliers, he did not mind incurring the anger and the fury of his Minister. Dr. Scharping described this in detail (Document Number Fritzsche-3). When he learned of cruelties in the concentration camp at Oranienburg, he protested. The culprits were punished at that time. Dr. Scharping’s affidavits (Document Number Fritzsche-2) which I submitted, and others, prove his implicit willingness to assist those who were persecuted, for political or racial reasons, when they appealed to him. Significant of his tolerance is the fact that he made possible the continued publication of the Frankfurter Zeitung (Document Number Fritzsche-5). Other proofs along that line, which are also submitted with my Document Book 2, are not negligible, and in the very case of Fritzsche certainly cannot simply be passed over with the comment that he cold-bloodedly handed men over to their death (Prosecution Address of 23 January 1946). He was not willing to sacrifice his dignity as a human being to false idealism, nor for the sake of an oath he had taken.

While the Prosecution have tried to darken the picture, I can point to brighter spots—namely, those which picture him as the representative of propaganda.

Was he a liar—perhaps a notorious liar? That Goebbels was one became clear by the revelations of this Trial. And as it was wrongly assumed that Fritzsche was his right-hand man, the implication was, of course, that Fritzsche had the same attributes. This assumption should now clearly be refuted. It is my conviction that, had not Goebbels evaded his responsibility by seeking a way out through death, we should not see Fritzsche in the dock here as representative of the Propaganda Ministry. The further assumption that all collaborators of Goebbels must wittingly have made use of lies, too, is unjustified. It would only be justified if it had been established here that Fritzsche was in a position to grasp all the real and deep-lying connection and causalities. But only this Trial made that possible. Fritzsche remained entangled in error like millions of other Germans. Glaring abuses were to be seen everywhere. Fritzsche was not unaware of them. Indeed, he has declined to be characterized before this Tribunal as an opponent of Nazism. He does, however, claim for himself to have opposed abuses insofar as he could recognize them. This entitles him to be put on a higher moral plane.

Neither was he a zealot or a fanatic, obsessed by one idea or by the adoration of power and success, and inaccessible to criticism. Of course, it was a sin, indeed the grievous sin against the spirit, to have continued to serve the system. The decisive point is, however, whether he was in a position to detect more than mere abuses. Falsehood was already built into the foundation, and anything built upon that was bound to be deceitful. It was not only the “thousand-door ministry,” as it was once called, that was poisoned. The real reason why everything in Germany was poisoned by falsehood could best be detected by those who lived in a purer atmosphere.

Fritzsche did not keep immune from the phraseology; but he used it perhaps with better taste than many others. He was in a position to state here—and this is no mere empty phrase—that he has always acted fairly and honorably in every respect in his professional work. Dr. Scharping, too, has emphasized this in his affidavit. Is this not an indication that he really did not detect that the whole foundation upon which his work was built up was hollow and deceitful? Had he been a professional liar, he would not have been interested in doing clean, honest work, in checking foreign reports, and in all that which induced him to find a truthful basis for the press and radio.

The Prosecution, have laid stress upon his rise in the Propaganda Ministry. Did they mean to imply thereby that he was particularly qualified as a liar? Actually, his career—however modest it was, compared to that of Hitler’s other vassals—has quite a different foundation as has also been clearly determined here. He got ahead only because he was qualified as a journalist, as an expert, not because he was particularly good at lying, but because he had a better command of speech than many others.

As proved by the affidavits of Dr. Scharping and Frau Krüger (Document Number Fritzsche-8) Fritzsche lived on a modest scale. During his activity in the Propaganda Ministry he gathered no riches, possessed no luxurious dwelling; nor would he have accepted any presents. The Prosecution, moreover, made no claims to the contrary. It therefore does not appear astonishing that those who had not only heard his voice on the radio but also knew him personally should have emphasized his humane qualities. Dr. Scharping declares in his affidavit, “it was considered a distinction to be allowed to work with him.” Is it in keeping with human experience that a man who lies could have won such respect? I believe human esteem can only be won by an honest character. Those who are in daily intercourse with a person can find out whether he is a liar or not. And if his speech does not betray him, then his eyes will.

There may be many possibilities to clarify the contradiction that somebody who has co-operated in the propaganda of the Third Reich is nevertheless honest and a lover of truth. The most immediate explanation is probably that which can well be taken from Fritzsche’s own remark, which I repeat here: He said he felt—and this may well be significant for the verdict if not for history—that he, too, was deceived by Hitler. Before this Tribunal Fritzsche has not only defended himself but the German people as well. To what extent he himself is responsible to the German people for the fact that he, again and again, and till the end, urged them to see the war through, is not a matter to be decided here. Even though Fritzsche may not, like others, have realized at an earlier date that he was serving an evil cause, or although he may not have divorced himself from the state leadership because he wanted to share the cup of bitterness with the German nation to the last dregs, he is not guilty in the sense of the Indictment brought against him before this Tribunal. I ask for his acquittal.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will adjourn until 2 o’clock.

[The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.]