The Nuremberg Interviews (17 page)

I asked Fritzsche what Goebbels’s attitude had been toward
Der Stürmer
. “Goebbels, strangely enough, helped me in my second attempt to ban
Der Stürmer
. I think he did so because I convinced him by a
casual remark, in which I said,
‘Der Stürmer
will do us much harm abroad because the only thing the enemy will have to do would be to photostat
Der Stürmer
.’ Goebbels agreed immediately and the prohibition of
Der Stürmer
became a joint proposal of mine and Goebbels’s. I am making no excuses or defense for Goebbels because he was a completely ruthless, conscienceless fanatic. I simply want to point out this interesting fact.”

I remarked that in a recent conversation that I had with Goering, he called Goebbels more anti-Semitic than Himmler. Fritzsche said, “I believe that is true. Goebbels must have had a tremendous hatred for the Jews — but not more than Himmler. I have no doubt, at this date, that Goebbels knew of the murder of 5 million Jews, a fact which he kept hidden from me and others at that time.”

I said then that it seemed that Goebbels’s agreeing with him to suppress
Der Stürmer
was not idealism but something else. “That is correct. I didn’t even think it was idealism at that time. It was for that reason that I selected only those arguments which I thought Goebbels would swallow. There were other things about which I argued with Goebbels. I would always think over carefully which argument would be most effective with Goebbels, and then I would use it.”

The conversation turned then to the subject of Rosenberg. “Formerly I believed that Alfred Rosenberg was a pure theoretician who would fail if given any kind of practical job — even the most simple. As far as his writings, I personally only read the first chapter of
The Myth of the Twentieth Century
.” I remarked that Rosenberg had become rather disturbed when he heard Schirach remark that he, too, had read only the first chapter of that book. “That’s too bad. I always had the impression that Rosenberg embodied German mysticism. I felt that he belonged to the Romantic era and that there was only a slight whiff of modernity about him. There was nothing unified or organized about the man. Now I want to say something terrible, which is not for the trial. This pure theoretician carries the main guilt of all those who sit here on the defendants’ bench, although he carries that guilt to a certain extent innocently. In my opinion, he had a tremendous influence on Hitler, during the period when Hitler still did some thinking — later that stopped. I mean about between the years 1923 and 1928 Rosenberg influenced Hitler. Let me explain. Hitler was a man who lived in the present and was a tremendously active individual. Rosenberg’s importance exists because his
ideas, which were only theoretical, became in the hands of Hitler a reality and actually transpired.

“If Rosenberg would be honest and actually look through things, then he would see himself for what he really is. He is like a hen who has just given birth to a duck. The comparison is very mild. The same fate repeated itself for Rosenberg a second time. I have no doubt that in the case of Russia, Rosenberg provoked in Hitler’s imagination the idea that wide spaces in the East could be used for colonizing. I think Rosenberg was put in charge of the activities in the East after the war was started without ever being consulted.

“But actually during the first few months of the war against Russia, Rosenberg still represented the colonial policy in the East. After three or four months he saw how wrong that policy was, but the locomotive sped forward on the wrong track. Rosenberg was minister for the occupied eastern territories and he did not have courage enough to refuse that position. In many regards Rosenberg is the most tragic figure, with the exception of myself, in this trial.”

I probably looked doubtful although I actually said nothing. Fritzsche said, “As an American, you probably cannot understand. It is a question of a man who is basically peaceful, continually participating in this and that by way of compromise. It was always in the belief of choosing the better, perhaps the better of two evils, that he compromised. That is the tragedy. That is what I mean. It is not a question of my trying to defend Rosenberg, because his life or death in the big picture is of little consequence. My life or death in the big picture is of little consequence. That is my picture of Rosenberg.”

I remarked that it seemed to me then that Hitler had some ideas about people, or at least how he could use people. Fritzsche said, “Yes, but Hitler had a limitless bad knowledge of humans. Either that or he is even a bigger criminal than I see him today, and I certainly consider him one of the greatest criminals in world history.”

I asked him whether, in his opinion,
The Myth of the Twentieth Century
by Rosenberg had been widely read, because in spite of its large printings, everyone I had ever spoken to denied having read it beyond the first chapter.

“For myself, I can only say that I read parts of
The Myth of the Twentieth Century
, and I heard a few of Rosenberg’s speeches, which incidentally were very boring and dull. I emphatically fought against
Rosenberg’s ideas, especially in regard to the church question. I searched for an argument at that time which might be most effective in the surroundings I found myself in. Finally I used the argument that one doesn’t destroy a religion until one has found a new one to replace the old. Because without religion, people cannot exist.

“Rosenberg was completely areligious. That was the deepest of his defects. Rosenberg has a one-track mind. He is a pedant. One gathers the impression certainly that he never obtained knowledge from his surroundings, which would be necessary in order to form new philosophic ideas, but he obtained his ideas from books and from his own mind, which was not subject to the influences of reality.

“Rosenberg had less influence among the old National Socialists than one would believe. But among the youth his ideas played a great part because they were utilized in every school. The tragic thing is that Rosenberg’s fantastic theories were actually put into practice. Rosenberg’s institute attempted to make speeches before my press conferences. They criticized articles which appeared in the press. In those regards I always had to fight Rosenberg.”

I asked Fritzsche to tell me more about Rosenberg’s institute. “It was in charge of the foreign policy education of the party. Rosenberg had an institute in Berlin, in the suburb of Dahlem. There was also the East Institute of Rosenberg and several other institutes.
¹²
He always mixed into those things. Rosenberg stemmed from Stewart Chamberlain. Chamberlain and Rosenberg had the same system and the same line, but the difference is that Chamberlain’s theories were never put into practice. Furthermore, compared to Rosenberg, Chamberlain is mild. Really, there is no German philosopher after Hegel. He was a pure mental thinker. Hegel is the mental father of Karl Marx on one side and of Fichte on the other.”

Walther Funk
1890–1960

Walther Funk was minister of economics from 1937 to 1945. Found guilty at Nuremberg of crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, he was sentenced on October 1, 1946, to life imprisonment. He was released for health reasons from Spandau prison in 1957.

Walther Funk is a fat little man, roly-poly in appearance, with an indeterminate air, given to sentimental phrases and platitudes, concerned mainly about his immediate comfort, and absorbed in his genitourinary complaints. I have seen him often in the past and he is always most ingratiating, eager to be visited, polite, and cooperative. When the question of his political activity is approached he becomes tearful or defensive or both, and reiterates in various ways his theme: “I was only a small man and I had no idea of what was going on.”

We spoke at first of his genitourinary difficulties. He has had a urethral stricture for the past twenty-five years, and a slight hypertrophy of the prostate gland, requiring occasional catheterization. Later he corrected himself and said that his urinary problems began at the age of twenty-three, following a urethral discharge, so that he has had these symptoms and has taken genitourinary treatments for the past thirty-three years.

He was born on August 18, 1890, in Königsberg, East Prussia. He said that in view of his defense coming up soon, he would tell me the essential facts of his life because he might not be permitted to do so in court. I
told him I thought he would be able to, but that he should relate whatever he pleased. He said that he noted that I am “very correct” because I take notes on my conversations with him. I assured him that these notes were for my own records and were not a concern of the prosecution. He looked slightly dubious but said agreeably that it was understood, since I was a doctor and a psychiatrist.

He recounted details of his early life in a broad manner, which seemed somehow rehearsed. He reminded me that he had written a short biographical sketch of his life some time ago, shortly after he came to the Nuremburg prison. He touched on his biography very briefly. “I come from a respectable bourgeois family in Königsberg. Most of my ancestors were businesspeople, but there were some relatives who were quite artistic.”

Regarding his education, he said he attended the University of Berlin, taking courses in law, political science, art, and music. During the First World War he was in the infantry for a while, but then his genitourinary difficulties began and he was discharged in 1916. He then decided on becoming a newspaperman, although he toyed with the idea of devoting his talents to music. From 1916 until 1922 he was reporter, columnist, and editor of various newspapers. In 1922 he became editor of the
Berliner Börsenzeitung
and remained as editor in chief for the ensuing ten years. It was a commercial paper, mainly, although it carried regular news features.

In 1931 he retired from the editorship of the paper, “because I felt that the National Socialists were certain to assume power and I was drawn to the movement. Germany was in a crisis. Unemployment was great. Class struggles existed.

“The democratic parliamentary system was a failure. I had always spoken out publicly against the Versailles Treaty, which I felt was responsible for the bad conditions in Germany. I was always for private enterprise, and so was Gregor Strasser, who was a friend of mine, and a great follower of Hitler.
¹
Private enterprise is important because without it there is Communism. Without it there would be no acknowledgment of the fundamental differences in talent and capacity between one human being and another. I was most interested, however, in preventing a class struggle, and National Socialism seemed to provide for a socialist nationalist state.

“Are you interested in hearing what the economic situation in Germany
was before the National Socialists came to power?” Funk smiled weakly. I told him to tell me what he wanted to say. “Well, it’s a sort of review for me of what I must tell the tribunal. Germany was in a financial mess due to reparations. We were sending out our money abroad to pay reparations without receiving anything in return. So there was inflation in Germany. We owed every foreign state more than we could repay. The middle class suffered most. And the middle class is the foundation of our German culture. Every third family was beset with unemployment. The government was ineffectual and weak. I agreed with Strasser that we required a strong authoritarian government and a unified political feeling among the people.

“At the same time, the National Socialists commanded a majority in the Reichstag.
²
The popularity of the party was tremendous, and Hitler’s personal magnetism attracted millions. I, too, was attracted but I felt the economic program of Hitler needed practical support. I founded an information service for the purpose of issuing economic and political information to leading party circles.

“At that time I believed in the Führer principle because to me it meant that the best one should be the leader. If the leader is good and responsible, then the government is good. At any rate, through my friend Gregor Strasser, I first met Hitler in 1931 and I felt I could influence the economic program of Germany for its own good.

“When I met Hitler I was taken in by his unusual personality. He was very brilliant at speechmaking, at grasping a problem quickly. He agreed with my ideas about individual rights, the fine difference between individual capacities. He invited me to work with him. But I was never really close to Hitler. In 1933 and ‘34 when I was chief of the news service of the government, I saw Hitler regularly. He would often break off a conversation in the middle and have me play the piano for him. He had an ear for music, or at least so it seemed.

“But after I became minister of economics I did not see Hitler more than a few times. He rarely consulted me. I was really occupying a useless position because the direction of the economic program had been given to Goering. Afterward, as late as 1942, Speer, as head of armaments, became more or less chief of economy.