The Nuremberg Interviews (23 page)

“Of all the defendants the only ones I know well are Schirach and Funk. I never even heard of Fritzsche. Kaltenbrunner I saw once for ten minutes on official business. Keitel, Jodl, and Doenitz I knew only officially.
Speer I knew a little better. I met Rosenberg about twice a year. I had no feeling toward him, I was completely neutral. Ribbentrop I never had any feeling about either. I saw him at the Führer’s a couple of times and once I had breakfast at his house and once he came to mine. The only popular people in Germany were myself and Hitler — and in the end I was the only one.”

Goering tried going to court yesterday morning but requested to be sent back to his cell in the afternoon because of pains in his right lower limb. In court yesterday he made many facial grimaces and walked as if he were in great pain. There was no doubt that his sciatica was not as severe as he would give the impression, because later that afternoon in the courtyard and in his cell he walked easily. Examination of the right lower extremity yesterday and today revealed no objective evidence of sciatic neuritis; straight leg bending was normal, the ankle jerks were equal, and there were no sensory abnormalities. It seemed clear that he was utilizing his symptom to stay out of court for a while during the unpleasantness of Schirach’s case.

He was friendly, eager to talk, and quite comfortable this afternoon. Concerning the Schirach defense he remarked offhandedly, “I know Schirach and I know what he is going to say. I don’t want to comment on it, but personally, I think he is making a mistake. He is not any different now than he was, but he would have the world believe that he has become a Jew lover and that he was swindled by Hitler. Schirach did his independent share of Jewish persecution.” Goering smiled as if he had expended the subject. It occurred to me that his attempt at solidifying the attitudes of the defendants having failed, he was turning on each of them as they deviated from his “line.”

He asked me if I had spoken with Gerd von Rundstedt, since he had heard that the old field marshal recently came to this prison to testify for the general staff. I replied that Rundstedt told me that he was an anti-Nazi and that the so-called Rundstedt Offensive should have been called the Hitler Offensive.
⁴
Goering smiled and nodded. “That’s correct. It was the Hitler Offensive. It was brilliantly planned by Hitler but poorly executed by the generals. It was not Rundstedt who was at fault so much as Dietrich and his Sixth Army, which was not capable. Dietrich was no army commander and should never have been made one. This
Sixth Army was an all-motorized panzer force. The offensive itself was planned by a genius. The Führer was himself a genius. The offensives against Poland and France were also his plans. The plan against Russia was also that of a genius, but its execution poor. The Russian campaign could have ended in 1941 — successfully.”

I said that Rundstedt’s attitude had been entirely different. He had told me that Hitler’s plans for the offensive were “stupid” and that personally, Rundstedt had been in favor of merely holding the German lines defensively and making no attempt at an offensive. Goering frowned and said, “The army generals are all suddenly smarter than Hitler. But when he was running things they listened to what he said and were glad of his advice. For example, the army group of Fedor von Bock, which was the Army Group Middle, failed in its mission. The original plan was the encirclement of the northern and southern Russian armies. Instead, Bock drove on to Moscow and was cut off. The Russian southern army was later encircled but the northern army could not be defeated, which otherwise would have been the case if Bock had followed Hitler’s advice.

“Hitler had the willpower of a demon and he needed it. If he didn’t have such a strong willpower he couldn’t have achieved anything. Don’t forget, if Hitler had not lost the war, if he did not have to fight against the combination of big powers like England, America, and Russia — each one he could have conquered individually — these defendants and these generals would now be saying, ‘Heil Hitler,’ and would not be so damn critical.”

I asked him when he first thought that Germany was defeated. He seemed thoughtful. I asked him if it was possibly at the time of D-Day in Normandy. Goering said emphatically, “No, that was far from the end. The situation was not bad at all until Ardennes. It was only then that things began to look dangerous. Field Marshal Guenther Hans von Kluge didn’t do his duty. He could have closed up his tanks. He didn’t do that and had to retreat. He poisoned himself later.” I asked him why Kluge had not done his duty. “Well, it isn’t settled yet. He wanted to meet a high English officer and betray Hitler. It’s another example of the generals making an about-face and double-crossing Hitler.”
⁵

If Hitler had won the war, what would the new order be like? “After the victory of France, Hitler wanted very little indeed. From France he would have taken Alsace-Lorraine. He would also want the former German
provinces in Poland. The English empire he never wanted. If we had won the war against Russia we would have done away with the colossal Soviet Russia that exists, and have instituted a federal system there. Hitler might have asked for several provinces in the region of the Baltic states, but certainly no more.”

Did Hitler have any aims in South America? “Ach! What should he want there? Also in Africa — the only thing he was interested in was the former German colonies. Hitler was more of a continental man — not a colonial man. He wanted a union of European states under the leadership of Germany — just as the United States is now doing. It would have been a plan whereby the European continent would fit loosely together and work out harmoniously.”

I remarked that in his court testimony, Goering had spoken very little of Hitler the man, although he had praised Hitler the leader. Could he tell me some more about this mysterious person about whom there was so much speculation? “To me there are two Hitlers: one who existed until the end of the French war; the other begins with the Russian campaign. In the beginning he was genial and pleasant. He would have extraordinary willpower and unheard-of influence on people. The important thing to remember is that the first Hitler, the man who I knew until the end of the French war, had much charm and goodwill. He was always frank. The second Hitler, who existed from the beginning of the Russian campaign until his suicide, was always suspicious, easily upset, and tense. He was distrustful to an extreme degree.”

Was not Hitler always somewhat distrustful generally? “No. In political regards, of course, he liked to play all his cards, but personally he was not distrustful.” I said that Dr. Karl Brandt, when he was here in this prison, told me that Hitler was quite nervous toward the end.
⁶
“Yes, Hitler’s nerves were kaput. His left hand trembled and he was physically rocked. It took a tremendous willpower to keep him together.”

We talked of the atrocities, a subject which Goering disliked but which was unavoidable whenever discussing Hitler. “I’m sure Hitler didn’t know the details and that Himmler felt he could do what he wanted without having to fear reprisals. Previously Hitler was anything but cruel. That he became so in the last few years is obvious. Particularly in the last year of the war a human life was not worth much in his eyes.”

Was your outlook different from Hitler’s regarding the dignity and value of human life? “In the early years, Hitler pardoned many people
who were sentenced to death.
⁷
Later he didn’t do that. I myself was always strict in cases of treason and rape, but in other cases I pardoned people. Women I always pardoned and never sentenced to death.” I asked him about his impression of Hoess, the commandant at Auschwitz, who had testified before the tribunal that he exterminated men, women, and children of all ages. “I didn’t know anything about it. As Hoess said before the tribunal, it was kept secret. I can hardly believe it — the numbers were so great. I can’t see it. I can’t believe that Hitler knew it. Of course, it’s sufficient what did happen — but that the numbers could be so large, I can’t envisage. Of course, there were rumors at the time, but I never believed them. People like Hoess and Himmler and the smaller SS folk who carried out these orders must have known about them, but even so, I can’t understand it. How they did such a thing is beyond me.

“The order to do away with certain groups of people was never discussed because if it had been discussed there would have been very much resistance against the idea. Himmler was undoubtedly a criminal and he should not have committed suicide. It was different with Hitler, whose suicide I condone. Himmler should not have left Kaltenbrunner and others to be responsible for his misdeeds. The only way Himmler got away with the atrocities he ordered was by either influencing Hitler in a wrong direction or by taking advantage of the great preoccupation Hitler had with the war and doing things on his own.

“I heard of a case once where the rumor said that a few thousand people had been killed. I thought it was enemy propaganda. When I asked about it I was told that it was only enemy propaganda. All of us knew that people were tried expeditiously in the concentration camps and were sentenced to death, but we didn’t know of innocent people being exterminated. I heard the name Eichmann here for the first time.
⁸
That the Jews should be evacuated from Germany was clear. That the Jews should go to the general government in Poland was also clear. But not that they should be exterminated. After the war the Jews were to be brought to Palestine or elsewhere. The plan to evacuate them existed before the war. Such plans were made for the next ten years. For example, there was also a plan about how foreign exchange of money should be handled. I take all the responsibility for what happened in National Socialist Germany but not for the things I knew nothing about, such as the concentration camps and the atrocities.”

Did not Goering introduce the first concentration camps in 1933 or 1934? “Yes, I frankly admit concentration camps for Communists and other enemies of National Socialism at that time, but certainly not with the idea of killing people or of using them as extermination camps.”

Did you agree that the Jew was undesirable as a human being? “At the end of 1938 or 1939 it was not a question of whether they were desirable or not. The difference between Jew and German was so great that there was no chance for the existence of Jews in Germany. If the Jews had not been shut out of economic life by the vicious press and the economists, such as that great democrat Dr. Schacht, they would have been able to remain in Germany. At the beginning, in 1933, Hitler said that the Jews should be removed from economic life, but only from state positions. However, party pressure constantly increased. Then came the crisis of November 1938, which disturbed the entire economic existence of the Jews. After that, something had to happen. Either the Jews would have to be taken into economic life or something had to happen. Most of the Jews tried to get out of Germany themselves because they saw no way of living. So you see, it was not a question of whether they were desirable or not. The situation developed rapidly; it was not planned for. It was disturbing to the economic life because our relationships with foreign nations were cut. I believe it was the worst thing that Goebbels could bring about. Goebbels was a fanatic.

“Did I ever tell you about Goebbels? He incurred Hitler’s disapproval after that incident with the movie actress for which he was beaten up. That clubfooted fanatic! He forced women to submit to him sexually because of his powerful position. He influenced Hitler to become anti-Semitic more than Hitler had been before. Hitler used to come to my house once in a while for a cup of coffee, and because I led a normal life, he would leave about nine o’clock. I was in the habit of retiring early. However, Hitler used to spend practically all of his nights, sometimes until four a.m., with Goebbels and his family. God knows what evil influence Goebbels had on him during those long visits.”

What did Goebbels have in mind — what were his own reasons for anti-Semitism? “Goebbels was the strongest representative of anti-Semitism. He saw his big chance to become powerful by using the press for anti-Semitic reasons. Personally, I think Goebbels was using anti-Semitism merely as a means of achieving personal power. Whether he had any deep-seated hatred against the Jews is questionable. I think he
was too much of a thief and dishonest opportunist to have any deep-seated feelings for or against anything. But for years Goebbels had been trying in vain to become a big power. At last he saw his chance. He had whipped up anti-Semitic feelings to such a point by his vicious propaganda that he now thought he could do anything. He probably didn’t think about the consequences himself. He was a fanatic of an abnormal caliber. Streicher was a tame man compared to Goebbels, because Streicher is half crazy and stupid, whereas Goebbels was just unscrupulous, clever, and dangerous. You couldn’t discuss anything with Goebbels. And for the same reason, you couldn’t discuss anything with Himmler. Goebbels was so dishonest that it didn’t pay to discuss anything with him.”

Did you say that Goebbels was more anti-Semitic than Himmler? “Himmler might have done more in practice, but talked less about it. Himmler pretended to be much different than he was. For example, his speeches to the SS leaders in Posen, et cetera, were read here for the first time — they were very secret.
⁹
To the outside world, Himmler appeared as an ambiguous puzzle. He was always a psychological puzzle to me, too. I never understood how Himmler obtained so much influence with Hitler. He was a good organizer and an ambitious fellow, but not a man who could exert a strong psychological influence on the masses. The atrocities are, for me, the most horrible part of the accusation in this trial. They thought that I took it lightly or laughed about it or some such nonsense, in court. That is definitely a mistake. I am the type of person who is naturally against such things and my own psychological reaction is to laugh or smile in the face of adversity. Perhaps that explains my attitude in court. Besides, I was not to blame for these horrors. It’s not just that I am a hard man because of my long experience in the army and in politics. It’s true that I saw plenty in the First World War and during the air raids and at the front in this war. But I was always a person who felt the suffering of others. To paint me as an unfeeling ogre who laughs in court at the atrocities is stupid.”