The Nuremberg Interviews (37 page)

Concerning his own childhood he said that his father never remarried and that for that reason they had housekeepers. Both of the housekeepers he recalled as unpleasant, domineering women. He thought that possibly the second housekeeper was the reason for his going to Canada in 1910, as she “made our lives miserable.” However, his main reason for the trip to Canada was to “visit friends.”

Alfred Rosenberg
1893–1946

Alfred Rosenberg was an early follower of Hitler, editor of the anti-Semitic paper
Völkischer Beobachter
, and appointed minister of the occupied territories in 1941. Found guilty at Nuremberg of conspiracy to commit crimes, crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, he was hanged on October 16, 1946.

Interview for over an hour with Alfred Rosenberg (Gilbert translating). The man appears about fifty years of age, states he has lost some twenty pounds in weight, does not look particularly malnourished. On the contrary he is a medium-sized fellow, with graying light brown hair, in apparently good physical condition. He was dressed in an American field jacket, tweed trousers, shoes without laces, colored shirt without tie. He greeted us with superficial amiability, moved his papers from the cot, and so forth, and invited us to sit down. He sat on a chair opposite.

His face is a costume of sobriety and philosophic calm, smiling understanding, broad vision, and reflective of the true philosopher, who looks on all that is transpiring with critical, but not bitter, detachment.

We discussed many things. It started out with Gilbert’s asking him if he had reread his own copy of the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
,
¹
which Gilbert had given him a week ago. He was asked if on rereading it he had changed his opinions any (the book was published in 1923), and whether he still thought it reliable, since claims that it is fraudulent are widely accepted. Rosenberg smiled enigmatically … and said he had
not had an opportunity to reread it all, but that he had not changed his mind. True, he was young and perhaps a bit one-sided when he read it, he said, but as for its authenticity or lack of it, that was still a “dark secret which might never be illuminated.” Nor did he seem particularly interested in whether it was factual or not. His broad, philosophic concession that “it was a question” and a “dark secret” seemed to epitomize his liberalism. In this way he differed from Streicher’s response to the same query on the
Protocols;
Streicher had said yes, it was probably not authentic, but everything it said was true anyway and could be found in various Jewish writings.

The Jewish question was one which required a knowledge of history, philosophy, the Greeks, a study of races, music, art, and so forth. This is not literal but a summation of the generalities and quasi-learned arguments he propounded. The cause of the Jewish question was, of course, the Jews themselves. The Jews are a nation, and like every nation, have a nationalistic spirit. That’s all very well, but they should be in their own homeland. Now there were several places for Jews proposed in 1936 by the English (I believe he said the French and Germans, too — implying that a joint proposal was made that the Jews turned down). These places were Alaska, Guiana (didn’t say which of the islands), Madagascar, and Uganda.
²

Why couldn’t the Jews be allowed to remain where they were, in other lands? That would have been all right if they didn’t do bad things, but they did. What did the Jews do? They spat at German culture. How? They controlled the theater, publishing, the stores, and so on. Of course, Jews have a two-thousand-year-old culture, too, but it is not the German culture, which is so different.

He picked up a copy of his book
Blut und Ehre (Blood and Honor)
, which I had beside me, and said something to the effect that he would show he was not a fanatic about Jews, that he once made a speech in which Jews were not mentioned. In that speech, contained in the book, he discussed nature and science.

Did Rosenberg consider himself a historian, or a philosopher, primarily? Well, both, because you can’t separate the two things. Did he consider himself an authority on those subjects? Yes indeed, he had studied all kinds of history and philosophy since in his teens. What did he get his degree in, philosophy or history or what? In architecture, he said. But he never practiced it. He became a journalist soon after his student days
were over, and he was a writer for a newspaper. In 1923 he was editor of the
Völkischer Beobachter
(Munich), which was the National Socialist Party organ. In 1924 it was banned (probably he meant it was banned from the time of the putsch in 1923 until a year and half later). In 1925 it resumed publication and he remained editor of it until 1936 or 1938 (I forget which year he mentioned), after which it continued to be edited by someone else (name given but not recalled by me).

It was not a paper like Streicher’s. Yes, both were National Socialist, both anti-Semitic, but his was on a higher plane. There is always the mass of people who like pornography and cheap stuff such as
Der Stürmer
contained. There are analogies in every political party; some high-class stuff and some low-class stuff. Both serve their purpose.

Every doctor knows that there are different types of blood, various classes, Rosenberg said at one point, in discussing the differences between races. Would, for example, a blood transfusion from a Negro cause any character differences to ensue if given to an Aryan? Rosenberg said quite seriously, with his “philosophic” smile, he didn’t know. That would be a brutal experiment such as was done in the concentration camps. He smiled as if he had scored a triumph of reasoning. We pressed the point though for his opinion; suppose a Nazi soldier were injured and given some Jewish blood, or Negro blood. Would character changes occur? It wasn’t proven, he said. Negroes beget Negroes, Jews Jews, so it must be that blood will tell.

What was Rosenberg’s main objection to Bolshevism? He seemed surprised at that question, as if it were a subject which needed no explanation. After a few moments he said vehemently, “Bolshevism wants to destroy by power a very sensitive state culture without any consideration for the history of the nation. Secondly, Bolshevism wants to do this for the benefit of a single class of the population. Thirdly, Bolshevism fights principally against private property. It creates collectives among the farmers and destroys the agricultural system. It works against the principles upon which more or less all states are based.

“The Communist Party is under the control of a central office. This central office is in Moscow. Therefore, Communism in various countries is in the making of the individual state or an expression of nationalism. This international Communistic Bolshevism gathers its support from a
strong state — Russia. Communism not only makes its policy in Russia but it prescribes the policy of Bolsheviks all over the world.”

I asked him whether he would approve of the system of Communism if it existed in an individual country and gained power without the help of the Communist International or the Soviet Union itself. Rosenberg thought for a moment and then said, without conviction, “Every state can choose its own way of governing — that’s a right which belongs to the nation. If, for example, on Russian territory, a Russian Communism existed, that would be no business of ours insofar as it would limit itself to that country.”

I was taking notes as usual during this interview. Rosenberg turned to me and said with an ironic smile, “You always take notes when we talk. I don’t care, in fact I am glad. But please take them accurately. Anyway, why do you take these notes?” I explained that I took notes in order to be as accurate as possible because I wanted to be able to refer to the interviews I had had with him and many other prominent political figures so that in the event of my ever writing something or being asked about such men as Rosenberg or Goering or the military people of Germany, I could base my remarks on their actual words, rather than on any vague impressions I may gather.

Rosenberg seemed satisfied with this explanation. He repeated, “As I said, I am grateful that you do take notes, but I do wish that you take them accurately and not misrepresent my rather complex theories and reasoning. After all, I am a philosopher and a student, and my thoughts may be complex. If at any time you don’t follow me, please interrupt, and I will explain further. I have to smile when some of the defendants say in court that they never read my books or works, because it is a reflection on their inabilities to follow a philosophic trend of thought, which to the common man is much too deep and profound. It is difficult for one to express important opinions and theories scientifically and at the same time use simple construction. However, I have always tried to be as lucid as possible and I never strived to make my work or writings beyond the comprehension of the normally intelligent man.”

We continued our discussion about political systems. “I am of the opinion that the seizing of power by the National Socialist Party by force would have been wrong. The National Socialists were elected legally in 1933 and there was no revolutionary movement such as in Bolshevik
Russia. I am also convinced that National Socialism achieved power because Germany in 1933 was poverty-stricken and close to civil war.”

I asked Rosenberg whether he thought that if perchance Germany had become democratic in 1933, he might have adopted democratic ideas. He did not answer directly but it was obvious that as a fighter and writer for totalitarianism for many years before the Nazis came to power, he had no potential for democratic sympathy. But he did say, “For fourteen years Germany had a democratic administration. It failed. There are many party factions. The National Socialist Party was elected by the majority of the votes in what is called a democratic manner. As a matter of fact, if we had had the English or American election law system, the entire Reichstag would have consisted of National Socialist members and no others. In France and in Germany there is a law of proportion whereby members of rival parties achieve seats in the parliament if they receive the majority of votes in the particular section of the country from which they come. The National Socialist Party came to power in a legal way because it was the strongest party in the election.
³

“In the preceding fourteen years, the democratic administration in Germany had left us 7 million unemployed, 6 million Communist votes, and firms which were in a bankrupt state — a total of firms bankrupt as big as the entire state of Württemberg.
⁴
In such a situation, the state had to place large and authoritative orders for the purpose of doing away with unemployment and to avoid civil war. In every state, laws must be made which cannot be voted upon if the situation of the state is critical. Even your President Truman recently had to threaten to take over the railroads because the workers threatened to strike. That’s a small example, but if a general strike occurs, or a similar emergency, the government has to step in.

“There were many Americans who were prejudiced against National Socialism but who visited Germany and then returned to the United States fully convinced that Germany could not live under the Versailles Treaty. I can mention men like Averell Harriman and Curley, the mayor of Boston.
⁵
Similarly in England, members of the British Parliament made speeches in which they said that it was impossible to burden the German people by taking away our colonies and the other restrictions imposed upon us by the Versailles Treaty.

“The tribunal here and your American newspapers talk so much
about our sharp Nazi methods, but do you realize that within the past year, since the defeat of Germany, 1 million Germans have been evicted from what was originally German territory and which has now been given to Poland? No League of Nations or other body intervened.”
⁶

Didn’t Rosenberg know that it was understandable from a psychological standpoint that the Poles should evict Germans after the cruelties which had been inflicted upon them by the Germans during the war? Rosenberg evaded this question and, as was his custom, turned to another point of argument. “Do you remember the history of what happened from 1919 after the last war to 1932? During those years Germans also were evicted from territories given to Poland by the Versailles Treaty. These territories were taken away from Germany without legality and without fairness. Your representative General Tasker Bliss of the United States acknowledged this at the Versailles convention.
⁷
General J. C. Smuts of South Africa wrote to your President Wilson at the time that if the Versailles Treaty were carried out, it would abrogate the Wilson treaty. Smuts referred to the agreement between England, France, and America of November 1918, when Wilson’s Fourteen Points were adopted. As a matter of fact, these Fourteen Points were thoroughly talked over and only twelve of them were approved.