At Landsberg—and this is the important part—Hitler declared to me and
to the men who were in prison with him, that he would never forget this
action of mine. Thus, because I took part in the march to the
Feldherrnhalle and marched at the head of the procession, Adolf Hitler
may have felt himself drawn to me more than to the others.
That was the friendship born of the deed.
DR. MARX: Have you finished?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: Were you consulted by Adolf Hitler on important matters?
STREICHER: I saw Adolf Hitler only at Gauleiter conferences; when he
came to Nuremberg for meetings we had meals together, along with five,
ten, or more people. I recall having been alone with him only once in
the Brown House at Munich, after the completion of the Brown House; and
our conversation was not a political one. All the conversations which I
had with Adolf Hitler, whether in Nuremberg, Munich, or elsewhere, took
place in the presence of Party circle members.
DR. MARX: Now I come to 1933. On 1 April 1933 a boycott day was decreed
throughout the entire German Reich against the Jewish population. What
can you tell us about that and what part did you play in it?
STREICHER: A few days before 1 April I was summoned to the Brown House
in Munich. Adolf Hitler explained to me something that I already knew,
namely, that a tremendous propaganda campaign against the new Germany
was being carried on by the foreign press. Although he himself had only
just become Chancellor, although Hindenburg was still at the head of the
Reich, although Parliament existed, a tremendous campaign of hate
against Germany had begun in the foreign press.
The Führer told me that even the Reich flag, the emblem of sovereignty,
was being subjected to insults abroad and that we would have to tell
world Jewry, “Thus far and no farther.” We would have to show them that
we would not tolerate it any longer.
Then he told me that a boycott day was to be fixed for 1 April and that
I was to organize it. Perhaps it would not be irrelevant to point out
the following facts: Adolf Hitler thought that it might be a good thing
to use my name in connection with this boycott day; that was not done in
the end. So I undertook the organization of the boycott and issued a
directive, which I believe is in the hands of the Court. There is no
need for me to say much about it. I gave instructions that no attempts
should be made on the lives of Jews, that one or more guards should be
posted in front of all Jewish premises—that is to say, in front of
every Jewish store—and that these guards should be responsible for
seeing that no damage was done to property. In short, I organized the
proceedings in a way which was perhaps not expected of me; and perhaps
not expected by many members of the Party. I frankly admit that.
One thing is certain; except for minor incidents the boycott day passed
off perfectly. I believe that there is not even one Jew who can
contradict this. The boycott day was a disciplined proceeding and was
not “anti” in the sense of an attack on something. It has a purely
defensive connotation.
DR. MARX: Was a committee formed at the time consisting of prominent,
that is, leading members of the Party and did that committee ever
appear?
STREICHER: As to the committee, it was like the Secret Cabinet Council
in Berlin, which never met. In fact, I believe that all the members of
the Cabinet did not even see each other or get to know each other.
DR. MARX: The committee members?
STREICHER: The boycott committee, that was put in the newspapers in
Berlin by Goebbels. That was a newspaper story. I spoke to Goebbels on
the telephone once. He asked how things were going in Munich, where I
was. I said that everything was going perfectly. Thus no conference ever
took place; it was only done for effect, to make it appear a much bigger
thing than it was.
DR. MARX: Witness, you made a mistake a few minutes ago, speaking of the
Munich affair in 1923. You meant 9 November—or did you not—9 November
1923, and what did you say?
STREICHER: I do not remember.
DR. MARX: It should be 9 November 1923?
STREICHER: 9 November 1923.
DR. MARX: Yes. The so-called “Racial Law” was promulgated at the Reich
Party Day in Nuremberg in 1935. Were you consulted about the planning
and preparation of the draft of that law; and did you have any part in
it, especially in its preparation?
STREICHER: Yes, I believe I had a part in it insofar as for years I have
written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must
be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my
articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should
serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for
themselves—the law of Moses, which says, “If you come into a foreign
land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.” And that,
Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws.
These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after
centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many
Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That
was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial
laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and
civilizations have perished.
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, this is rather too much of a digression. I
asked you whether you took part in planning and working out the draft of
the law, or whether you yourself were not taken by surprise when these
laws were promulgated.
STREICHER: I was quite honest in saying that I believe I have
contributed indirectly to the making of these laws.
DR. MARX: But you were not consulted on the law itself?
STREICHER: No. I will make a statement, as follows:
At the Reich Party Day in Nuremberg in 1935, we were summoned to the
hall without knowing what was going to happen—at least I myself had no
knowledge of it—and the racial laws were proclaimed. It was only then
that I heard of these laws; and I think that with the exception of Herr
Hess, _et cetera_, this is true of most of the gentlemen in the dock who
attended that Reich Party Day. The first we heard of these decrees was
at the Reich Party Day. I did not collaborate directly. I may say
frankly that I regarded it as a slight when I was not consulted in the
making of these laws.
DR. MARX: It was thought that your assistance was not necessary?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: Were you of the opinion that the 1935 legislation represented
the final solution of the Jewish question by the State?
STREICHER: With reservations, yes. I was convinced that if the Party
program was carried out, the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews
became German citizens in 1848. Their rights as citizens were taken from
them by these laws. Sexual intercourse was prohibited. For me, this
represented the solution of the Jewish problem in Germany. But I
believed that another international solution would still be found, and
that some day discussions would take place between the various states
with regard to the demands made by Zionism. These demands aimed at a
Jewish state.
DR. MARX: What can you tell us about the demonstrations against the
Jewish population during the night of 9 to 10 November 1938, and what
part did you play in it?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, if you are going into that, it is now 5
o’clock; and I think we had better adjourn now until Monday morning.
[_The Tribunal adjourned until 29 April 1946 at 1000 hours._]
ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH DAY
Monday, 29 April 1946
_Morning Session_
DR. MARX: Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal: Before continuing
with questions to the Defendant Streicher, may I ask permission to make
a statement?
On Friday afternoon, Herr Streicher referred to a case, namely, that
press event which concerned me and my professional attitude. I thereupon
took the opportunity to refer to this case in my statement as well, and
I pointed out that at that time I had had to ask for the protection of
the Tribunal against this damaging attack on my work and that this
protection was given me very graciously. On that occasion and in that
extemporary explanation I used the expression “newspaper writer.” I used
it exclusively with reference to the particular journalist who had
written the article in question in that Berlin newspaper regarding my
person and my activity as a lawyer.
By no means did I express, or mean to express, a reference to the press
in general. It was far from my intention in any way to attack the press,
the group of press experts, and particularly not the members of the
world press who are active here; nor did I wish to injure their
professional honor.
The reason for this statement of mine is a statement made on the radio,
according to which I, the attorney Marx, had attacked and disparaged the
press in general. I am, of course, aware of the significance of the
press. I know precisely what the press has to contribute and I should be
the last person to fail to recognize fully the extremely difficult work
and the responsible task of the press. May I, therefore, quite publicly
before this Tribunal ask that this statement be accepted; and may I ask
the gentlemen of the press to receive my statement in the spirit in
which it is made, namely, that this was merely a special comment on that
particular gentleman and not in any way on the entire press. That is
what I wanted to say.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, the Tribunal understood your statement the
other day in the sense in which you have now explained it.
DR. MARX: Yes. With the permission of the Tribunal, I shall then
continue with my examination.
Witness, what aims did you pursue with your speeches and your articles
in _Der Stürmer_?
STREICHER: The speeches and articles which I wrote were meant to inform
the public on a question which appeared to me one of the most important
questions. I did not intend to agitate or inflame but to enlighten.
DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the
Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany
which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?
STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for
centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for
instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my
place in the defendants’ dock today, if this book had been taken into
consideration by the Prosecution. In the book _The Jews and Their Lies_,
Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent’s brood and one
should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is not my question, I am asking you to
answer my question in accordance with the way I put it. Please answer
now with “yes” or “no,” whether there were...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I should like to interpose an objection to this
method of answering unresponsively and with speeches here. We are
utterly unable in this procedure to make objections when answers are not
responsive to questions. We have already got into this case, through
Streicher’s volunteered speeches, an attack on the United States which
will take considerable evidence to answer if we are to answer it. It
seems to me very improper that a witness should do anything but make a
responsive answer to a question, so that we may keep these proceedings
from getting into issues that have nothing to do with them. It will not
help this Tribunal, in deciding Streicher’s guilt or innocence, to go
into questions which he has raised here against us—matters that are
perfectly capable of explanation, if we take time to do it.
It seems to me that this witness should be admonished, and admonished so
that he will understand it, if that is possible, that he is to answer
questions and stop, so that we can know and object in time to orations
on irrelevant subjects.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, will you try, when you put the questions to the
witness, to stop him if he is not answering the questions you put to
him?
DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President. I was just in the process...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Streicher, you understand, you have heard what
has been said and you will understand that the Tribunal cannot put up
with your long speeches which are not answers to questions which we put
to you.
DR. MARX: I will now repeat the question and I want you to answer the
question first with “yes” or “no” and then to add a brief explanation
regarding the question.
Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came
into power, were there other publications in Germany which dealt with
the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?
STREICHER: Yes, even before the coming to power there were in every Gau
weekly journals that were anti-Semitic and one daily paper called the
_Völkischer Beobachter_ in Munich. Apart from that, there were a number
of periodicals which were not working directly for the Party. There was
also anti-Semitic literature. After the seizure of power, the daily
press was co-ordinated, and now the Party found itself in control of
some 3,000 daily papers, numerous weekly journals, and all type of
periodicals; and orders were given by the Führer that every newspaper
should provide enlightening articles on the Jewish question. The
anti-Semitic enlightenment was, therefore, after the seizure of power,
carried out on a very large scale in the daily press as well as in the
weekly journals, periodicals, and books. Consequently, _Der Stürmer_ did
not stand alone in its enlightening activity. But I want to state quite
openly that I make the claim of having treated the question in the most
popular way.
DR. MARX: Were the directives necessary for this issued by a central
office, say, for instance, by the National Socialist press service?
STREICHER: Yes. The Propaganda Ministry in Berlin had a National
Socialist press service. In this service, in every issue, there were a
number of enlightening articles on the Jewish question. During the war
the Führer personally gave the order that the press, far more than
previously, should publish enlightening articles on the Jewish question.
DR. MARX: The Prosecution accuse you of having contributed indirectly to
mass murders by incitation, and according to the minutes of 10 January
1946, the following charge has been made against you: No government in
the world could have undertaken a policy of mass extermination, as it
was done here, without having behind it a nation which agreed to it; and
you are supposed to have brought that about. What have you to say to
this?
STREICHER: To that I have the following to say: Incitation means to
bring a person into condition of excitement which causes him to perform
an irresponsible act. Did the contents of _Der Stürmer_ incite, this is
the question? Briefly stated, the question must be answered, “What did
_Der Stürmer_ write?” Several volumes of _Der Stürmer_ are available
here, but one would have to look at all the issues of 20 years in order
to answer that question exhaustively. During those 20 years I published
enlightening articles dealing with the race, dealing with what the Jews
themselves write in the Old Testament, in their history, what they write
in the Talmud. I printed excerpts from Jewish historical works, works
for instance, written by a Professor Dr. Graetz and by a Jewish scholar,
Gutnot.
In _Der Stürmer_ no editorial appeared written by me or written by
anyone of my main co-workers in which I did not include quotations from
the ancient history of the Jews, from the Old Testament or from Jewish
historical works of recent times.
It is important, and I must emphasize that I pointed out in all
articles, that prominent Jews, leading authors themselves, admitted that
which during 20 years as author and public speaker I publicly
proclaimed.
Allow me to add that it is my conviction that the contents of _Der
Stürmer_ as such were not incitation. During the whole 20 years I never
wrote in this connection, “Burn Jewish houses down; beat them to death.”
Never once did such an incitement appear in _Der Stürmer_.
Now comes the question: Is there any proof to be furnished that any deed
was done from the time _Der Stürmer_ first appeared, a deed of which one
can say that it was the result of an incitement? As a deed due to an
incitement I might mention a pogrom. That is a spontaneous deed when
sections of the people suddenly rise up and kill other people. During
the 20 years no pogrom took place in Germany, during the 20 years, as
far as I know, no Jew was killed. No murder took place, of which one
could have said, “This is the result of an incitement which was caused
by anti-Semitic authors or public speakers.”
Gentlemen, we are in Nuremberg. In the past there was a saying that
nowhere were the Jews in Germany so safe and so unmolested as in
Nuremberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, is not this becoming a rather lengthy speech?
DR. MARX: Streicher, you have explained this now sufficiently, so that
one can form an opinion—you mean, “I have not incited in such a way
that any spontaneous action carried out against the Jews by any group of
people or by the masses resulted”?
STREICHER: May I make a remark in this connection? Here we are concerned
with the most serious, the most decisive accusation raised against me by
the Prosecution, and here I ask the Tribunal to permit me to defend
myself against it objectively. Is it not of tremendous significance if I
can establish that in Nuremberg, of all places, no murder took place, no
single murder and no pogrom either? That is a fact.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already said it. I have just written down,
before I intervened, saying that no Jews have been killed not only in
Nuremberg but anywhere else as a result of your incitement.
DR. MARX: Witness, we shall make reference to these demonstrations of 9
and 10 November 1938 later.
STREICHER: Yes, but may I continue? The Indictment accuses me of having
indirectly contributed by incitation to mass murders, and I ask to be
allowed to make a statement on this: Something has been ascertained
today about which I myself did not know. I learned of the will left
behind by the Führer, and I assume that a few moments before his death
the Führer told the world the truth in that will. In it he says that
mass killings were carried out by his order; that the mass killings were
a reprisal.
Thus it is demonstrated that I, myself, cannot have been a participant
in the incredible events which occurred here.
DR. MARX: Finished?
STREICHER: Yes. You said that the Indictment accuses me in saying that
these mass killings could never have taken place if behind the
Government and behind the leaders of the State there had not been an
informed people.
Gentlemen, first of all, the question, “Did the German people really
know what was happening during the years of the war?” We know today...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, that is a matter of argument and not a matter
upon which you can give evidence. You can say what you knew.
STREICHER: I was a part of that nation during the war. During the war I
lived alone in the country. For 5 years I never left my farm. I was
watched by the Gestapo. From 1939 on I have been forbidden by the Führer
to speak.
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, we will certainly come to that later. I have
interrogated you now on this question, and I will proceed with my
questions. The other will come later.
STREICHER: But I wish to state that I had no opportunity—that is why I
said this—to learn what was actually going on.
I first heard of the mass murders and mass killings at Mondorf when I
was in prison. But I am stating here that if I had been told that 2 or 3
million people had been killed, then I would not have believed it. I
would not have believed that it was technically possible to kill so many
people; and on the basis of the entire attitude and psychology of the
Führer, as I knew it, I would not have believed that mass killings, to
the extent to which they have taken place, could have taken place.
Finished.
DR. MARX: The Prosecution also raise the charge against you that it was
the task of the educators of the nation to educate the people to murder
and to poison them with hatred, that you had devoted yourself
particularly to these tasks. What do you want to answer to this charge?
STREICHER: That is an allegation. We educated no murderers. The contents
of the articles which I wrote could not have educated murderers. No
murders took place, and that is proof that we did not educate murderers.
What happened during the war—well, I certainly did not educate the
Führer. The Führer issued the order on his own initiative.
DR. MARX: I now continue. The Prosecution further assert that the
Himmler-Kaltenbrunner groups and other SS leaders would have had no one
to carry out their orders to kill, if you had not made that propaganda
and if you had not conducted the education of the German people along
these lines. Will you make a statement on that?
STREICHER: I do not believe that the National Socialists mentioned read
_Der Stürmer_ every week. I do not believe that those who received the
order from the Führer to carry out killings or to pass on the order to
kill, were led to do this by my periodical. Hitler’s book, _Mein Kampf_,
existed, and the content of that book was the authority, the spiritual
authority; nor do I believe that the persons mentioned read that book
and carried out the order on the strength of it. Based on my knowledge
of what went on in the Movement, I am convinced that if the Führer gave
an order everyone acted upon it; and I state here quite openly that
maybe fate has been kind to me. If the Führer had ordered me to do such
things, I would not have been able to kill; but perhaps today I would
face some indictment which it has not been possible to lodge against me.
Perhaps because fate has taken a hand in this. But the conditions were
thus, that the Führer had such a power of hypnotic suggestion that the
entire people believed in him; his way was so unusual that, if one knows
this fact, one can understand why everyone who received an order acted.
And thus I want to reject as untrue and incorrect what was here thought
fit to assert against me.
DR. MARX: What do you know about the general attitude of Adolf Hitler to
the Jewish question? And when did Hitler first become hostile to the
Jews, according to your knowledge?
STREICHER: Even before Adolf Hitler became publicly known at all I had
occupied myself journalistically with anti-Semitic articles. However, on
the strength of his book, _Mein Kampf_, I first learned about the
historic connections of the Jewish problem. Adolf Hitler wrote his book
in the prison in Landsberg. Anyone who knows this book will know that
Hitler many years back, either by study of anti-Semitic literature or
through other experiences, must have developed this knowledge in himself
in order then to be able to write that book in prison in so short a
time. In other words, in his book Adolf Hitler stated to the world
public that he was anti-Semitic and that he knew the Jewish problem
through and through. He himself often said to me personally...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, the book _Mein Kampf_ is in evidence, and it
speaks for itself.
STREICHER: I will now answer your question, not with reference to the
book. You asked me whether Adolf Hitler had discussed the Jewish problem
with me. The answer is “yes.” Adolf Hitler always discussed the Jewish
problem in connection with Bolshevism. It is perhaps of importance in
answering that question to ask whether Adolf Hitler wanted a war with
Russia. Did he know long in advance that a war would come, or not? When
he was with us Adolf Hitler spoke of Stalin as a man whom he honored as
a man of action, but that he was actually surrounded by Jewish leaders,
and that Bolshevism...
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is going too far again. The question
which I put was quite exact, and I am asking you not to go so far
afield. You have heard the Tribunal object to it, and in the interest of
not delaying the proceedings you must not go into so many details. You
must not make speeches.
GEN. RUDENKO: Mr. President, I believe that some time ago Mr. Justice
Jackson remarked, quite justly, quite reasonably, that the Defendant
Streicher became so intoxicated by his own speeches that he did not
answer the questions put to him or the charges made against him. I
therefore invite the attention of the Tribunal to this fact and suggest
that the defendant abstain from making lengthy speeches and merely give
brief replies to the charges brought against him.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you go on, Dr. Marx, and try to keep the witness to
an answer to the questions which you have no doubt prepared.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.
STREICHER: May I, please, as a defendant, say a few words, here? The
question was...
THE PRESIDENT: [_Interposing._] No, you may not. You will answer the
questions, please.
DR. MARX: Next question. Is there reason for the assumption that Hitler,
when he decided to have the Jews in Europe killed in masses, was subject
to any influence, or what is to be considered the motive for that
dreadful decision?
STREICHER: The Führer could not be influenced. As I know the Führer, if
somebody had gone to him and said that Jews should be killed, then he
would have turned him down. And if, during the war, somebody had gone to
him and said, “I have learned that you are giving the order that mass
killings are to be carried out,” then he would have turned that man down
too. I therefore answer your question by saying that the Führer could
not be influenced.
DR. MARX: In other words, you want to say that the decision in this
matter was made entirely on his own initiative.
STREICHER: I have already said that that becomes clear from his will.
DR. MARX: In August 1938 the main synagogue in Nuremberg was demolished.
Was this done on your orders?
STREICHER: Yes. In my Gau there were approximately 15 synagogues, in
Nuremberg one main synagogue, a somewhat smaller one, and I think
several other prayer rooms. The main synagogue stood in the outskirts of
the medieval Reichsstadt. Even before 1933, during the so-called period
of struggle, when we still had the other government, I stated publicly
during a meeting that it was a disgrace that there should be placed in
the Old City such an oriental monstrosity of a building. After the
seizure of power I told the Lord Mayor that he should have the synagogue
torn down, and at the same time the planetarium. I might point out that
after the World War, in the middle of the park grounds laid out for the
recreation of the citizens, a planetarium had been built, an ugly brick
building. I gave the order to tear down that building and said that the
main synagogue, too, should be razed. If it had been my intention to
deprive the Jews of their synagogue as a church or if I had wanted to
give a general signal, then I would have given the order, after the
seizure of power, that every synagogue in my Gau should be torn down.
Then I would likewise have had all the synagogues in Nuremberg torn
down. But it is a fact that in the spring of 1938 only the main
synagogue was torn down; the synagogue in the Essenweinstrasse, in the
new city, remained untouched. That the order was then given in November
of that year to set fire to the synagogues, that is no fault of mine.
DR. MARX: In other words, you want to say that you did not order the
tearing down of this building for anti-Semitic reasons but because it
did not conform to the architectural style of the city?
STREICHER: For reasons of city architecture. I wanted to submit a
picture to the Tribunal on this, but I have not received any.
DR. MARX: Yes, we have a picture.
STREICHER: But you cannot see the synagogue in it. I do not know whether
the Tribunal want to see the picture. The picture actually shows only
the old houses, but the front of the synagogue facing the
Hans-Sachs-Platz is not visible. I do not know whether I may submit the
picture to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly, the photograph can be put in. Let us see
the photograph.
DR. MARX: In that case, I will submit it to the Tribunal as evidence and
I am asking you to accept it accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: What will it be, exhibit what?
DR. MARX: I cannot say at the moment, Mr. President. I shall take the
liberty of stating the number later and for the moment I confine myself
to submitting it. I could not present it any earlier because I had not
come into possession of this picture. It was only in the last days...
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, go on.
DR. MARX: In your measure in connection with the main synagogue did you
rely on any statements of art experts?
STREICHER: I had frequent opportunities to discuss the subject with
architects. Every architect said that there must have been a city
council which had no feeling whatsoever for city architecture, that it
was impossible to explain it.
These statements were not in any way directed against the synagogue as a
Jewish church, but rather against such a building in this part of the
city. Strangers, too, whom I guided—for on Party rally days I used to
accompany British and American people across the Hans-Sachs-Platz—and I
remember only one case where when I said “Do you not notice anything?”
that the person did not. But all other strangers said “How could that
building get there in the midst of these medieval buildings?” I could
also have submitted a book, written in 1877, which is in the prison
library, where a Professor Berneis, who was famous, wrote at that time
to the author, Uhde, in Switzerland, that he had now seen the Sachs
Platz...
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, that is enough now. In other words, you have
indicated that you believed you could rely on the judgment of architects
who seemed to you to be authorities?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: At the time when the synagogue was demolished, did you make a
speech?
STREICHER: Yes, but I want to point out that the Prosecution have
submitted an article, a report from the _Tageszeitung_, that was written
by a simple young man. I want to state that this article does not
contain a true representation of the statements which I made.
DR. MARX: I now come to the demonstrations on the night of 9 to 10
November 1938. What can you say concerning those demonstrations and what
role did you play in that connection? Were those demonstrations
initiated by the population?
STREICHER: Every year the Gauleiter and SA and SS leaders met the Führer
in Munich on the occasion of the historic day of 9 November. We sat down
to dinner in the old Town Hall, and it was customary for the Führer to
make a short speech after the dinner. On 9 November 1938, I did not feel
very well. I participated in the dinner and then I left; I drove back to
Nuremberg and went to bed. Toward midnight I was awakened. My chauffeur
told me that the SA leader Von Obernitz wanted to talk to the Gauleiter.
I received him and he said the following: “Gauleiter, you had left
already when the Minister of Propaganda, Dr. Goebbels, took the floor
and said”—I can now repeat it only approximately—“said, ‘Legation
Counsellor Vom Rath has been murdered in Paris. That is now the second
murder abroad of a prominent National Socialist. This murder is not the
murder by the Jew, Grünspan; this is rather the execution of a deed
which has been desired by all Jewry. Something should now be done.’” I
do not know now whether Goebbels said the Führer had ordered it; I
remember only that Von Obernitz told me that Goebbels had stated the
synagogues were to be set on fire; and I cannot now remember exactly,
but I think he told me that the windows of Jewish business houses were
to be smashed and that houses were to be demolished.
Then I said to Obernitz—for I was surprised—“Obernitz, I think it is
wrong that synagogues be set on fire, and at this moment I think it is
wrong that Jewish business houses be demolished; I think these
demonstrations are wrong. If people are let loose during the night,
deeds can be perpetrated for which one cannot be responsible.” I said to
Obernitz that I considered the setting on fire of synagogues
particularly wrong because abroad and even among the German people the
opinion might arise that National Socialism had now started the fight
against religion. Obernitz replied, “I have the order.” I said,
“Obernitz, I will not assume any responsibility here.” Obernitz left and
the action took place. What I have said under oath here I have
previously stated in several interrogations; and my chauffeur will
confirm it, for he was witness to this night’s conversation, and shortly
afterwards when he went to bed told his wife what he had heard up there
in my bedroom.
DR. MARX: Have you finished?
STREICHER: Yes, but you asked another question...
DR. MARX: Yes, whether it was a spontaneous act of force initiated by
the masses of the people?
STREICHER: Yes. In the National Socialist press there appeared after
this action an article to the same effect, which stated that a
spontaneous demonstration of the people had revenged the murder of Herr
Vom Rath. It had therefore been deliberately ordered from Berlin that
there should be a public statement to the effect that the demonstration
of 1938 was spontaneous. That this was not the case I was also able to
learn in Nuremberg; and it is remarkable that the indignation at what
had happened during those demonstrations expressed itself even here in
Nuremberg, even among the Party members.
The Prosecution have submitted an article which is a report on a speech
which I made on 10 November; and that is a remarkable piece of evidence
of the fact that the people were against this action. I was forced,
because of the atmosphere which prevailed in Nuremberg, to make a public
speech and say that one should not have so much sympathy for the Jews.
Such was the affair of November 1938.
Perhaps it might also be important for you to ask me how I, of all
people, happened to oppose the idea of these demonstrations.
DR. MARX: I thought you had explained that already. Very well. Who gave
the order then for the burning down of the synagogue still standing on
Essenweinstrasse?
STREICHER: I do not know who gave the order; I believe it was SA leader
Von Obernitz. I do not know the details.
DR. MARX: A further question: Did you yourself express publicly your
disapproval of these brutalities?
STREICHER: Yes. In a small circle of leading Party members I said what I
have always said, what I have always said publicly: I stated that this
was wrong. I talked to lawyers during a meeting—I do not know whether
my defense counsel himself was there—I believe it was as early as
November 1938 that I stated, to the Nuremberg lawyers at a meeting, that
what had happened here during that action, was wrong; that it was wrong
as regards the people and as regards foreign countries. I said then that
anyone who knew the Jewish question as I knew it would understand why I
considered that demonstration a mistake. I do not know whether this was
reported to the Führer at that time, but after November 1938 I was never
again called to the Hotel Deutscher Hof when the Führer came to
Nuremberg. Whether this was the reason I do not know, but at any rate I
did criticize these demonstrations publicly.
DR. MARX: It is assumed by the Prosecution that in 1938 a more severe
treatment of the Jews was introduced. Is that true, and what is the
explanation?
STREICHER: Yes. In 1938 the Jewish question entered a new phase; that is
shown, indeed, by the demonstration. I myself can only say in this
connection that there was no preliminary conference on this subject. I
assume that the Führer, impulsive as he was and acting on the spur of
the moment, got around probably only on 9 November to saying to Dr.
Goebbels, “Tell the organizations that the synagogues must be burned
down.” As I said, I myself did not attend such a meeting; and I do not
know what happened to bring about this acceleration.
DR. MARX: On 12 November 1938 the decree was published according to
which the Jews were to be eliminated from the economic life of the
country. Was there a connection between the orders for the
demonstrations of 9 November and that further decree of 12 November
1938, and would that decree be due to the same reason?
STREICHER: Well, here I can say only that I am convinced that there was
a connection. The order, rather the decrees, which were to have such an
extensive effect in the economic field, came from Berlin. We did not
have any conference. I do not remember any Gauleiter meetings in which
that was discussed. I do not know of any. That happened just as
everything happened; we were not previously informed.
DR. MARX: How was it that not you, but the Codefendant Rosenberg, was
given the task of attending to this matter?
STREICHER: Rosenberg was the spiritual trustee of the Movement, but he
was not given this particular task nor the task of the demonstration nor
that of economic matters.
DR. MARX: No, we are talking of different points. Rosenberg was the one
given the task by the Leaders of the State of taking care, as it was
called, of racial-political and other enlightenment tasks; and you were
not. How can that be explained? How can it be explained that you were
not chosen?
STREICHER: Rosenberg, as he himself said, had met the Führer very early
and was anyway, because of his knowledge, intellectually suited to take
over this task. I devoted myself more to popular enlightenment.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, he has told us that he wasn’t given the task.
Unless he had some communication with Rosenberg he can’t tell us
anything more about it except that he wasn’t given the task. All the
rest is mere comment and argument.
DR. MARX: Yes.
[_Turning to the defendant._] I now put the next question to you: Was an
order issued during the year 1939 forbidding you to make speeches?
STREICHER: Yes. In the autumn of 1939 my enemies went so far that the
Führer, without my being asked beforehand, issued a written order
through Party Member Hess forbidding me to make speeches. The threat of
immediate arrest was made should I act against this order.
DR. MARX: Is it also correct that in 1938 an effort was evidently made
to stop further publication of _Der Stürmer_, I mean in government
circles?
STREICHER: Such intentions existed quite often, and also at that time.
Perhaps I might refer to two other documents in this connection in order
to save time.
The Prosecution have submitted copies of a letter from Himmler and
Baldur von Schirach. Here I can give quite a simple explanation right
now. At that time, in 1939, there were intentions of prohibiting _Der
Stürmer_. Bormann had even issued some such order. Then the Chief Editor
of _Der Stürmer_ wrote to prominent members of the Party, asking them to
state their opinion about _Der Stürmer_. And thereupon letters were also
received from Himmler and Von Schirach. Altogether, I think about 15
letters were received from prominent members of the Movement; they were
merely kind replies to an inquiry.
DR. MARX: That is sufficient. Is it true that at the outbreak of the war
you were not made Armed Forces District Commissioner
(Wehrkreis-Kommissar) in your own Gau?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: How can that be explained?
STREICHER: Well, maybe that is not so important; that is how conditions
were at the time. There were certain personal feelings, _et cetera_; it
is of no significance. At any rate, I did not become Armed Forces
District Commissioner.
DR. MARX: The Prosecution have stated that after 1 September 1939 the
persecution of the Jews increased more and more. What was that due to?
STREICHER: That question only the Führer could answer; I cannot.
DR. MARX: But do you not think this had something to do with the
outbreak of war?
STREICHER: The Führer always said so in public, yes.
DR. MARX: A proceeding was instituted against you before the Supreme
Party Court. How did that happen? What was the development and the
result of that trial?
STREICHER: I am grateful that I have an opportunity to state quite
briefly before the International Military Tribunal something which I
have had to keep silent about up to now because of a Führer order. I
myself had instituted proceedings against myself before the Supreme
Party Court in order to defend myself against people who were denouncing
me. I was being accused...
THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant talking about some order which Hitler
gave that he was not to be allowed to speak or is he talking about
something else?
You remember, Dr. Marx, that certain allegations were struck out of the
record. If he is talking about those, it seems to me that we have got
nothing whatever to do with it. Am I right in recollecting that
something was struck out of the record?
DR. MARX: Yes it was, Mr. President, but only certain things from the
Göring report were struck out, only the one passage which concerned the
affair with the three young persons; but everything else was retained by
the Prosecution. The Defense, therefore, must be able to take a stand in
regard to these points, if the Prosecution do not say that they are
dropping the entire Göring report; and in that connection this
proceeding before the Supreme Party Court also plays a part. He can make
a brief statement about it.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. MARX: Witness, be brief.
STREICHER: Yes. It is important then that I instituted proceedings
against myself; about 10 points were involved which had been raised
against me, among them a matter referring to some shares. An affidavit
exists from the Göring report which states that I had been found guilty.
May I state here that the trial was never completed and no sentence was
passed.
That is the answer to the question which you have put to me.
DR. MARX: The matter referring to shares, does that have something to do
with the shares of the Mars works?
STREICHER: We will come to it later. It was not the main point.
DR. MARX: And then you were ordered to remain permanently at the
Pleikershof? Were you under the guard of the Gestapo there, and was
there also a check-up as far as visitors were concerned?
STREICHER: It is not correct that I was ordered to stay at the
Pleikershof. What is true is that I retired voluntarily with the
intention of never again being active in the Movement. It is correct
that the Gestapo watched me, and every visitor was called to the police
station and interrogated as to his conversations he had had. That is a
fact.
DR. MARX: During your stay at the Pleikershof did you have any
connections or correspondence with any leading personalities of the
Party or State?
STREICHER: No. As far as prominent persons of the Movement and of the
State are concerned, I had no correspondence whatsoever with them; that
is why the Prosecution could hardly find any letters. I never stated in
letters my opinion on the Jewish problem or on other matters. I shall
have to state then, in order to answer your question exactly, that I had
no correspondence with prominent persons of the Party and the State.
DR. MARX: After the outbreak of the war, were you informed of or
consulted in any way on any measures intended against the Jews?
STREICHER: No.
DR. MARX: What were your relations to Himmler? Did you know him at all
closely? Did you ever speak to him about measures against the Jews or
did he talk about intended mass executions of the Jews?
STREICHER: I knew Himmler just as I knew the SA leaders, or other SS
leaders. I knew him from common meetings, Gauleiter conferences, _et
cetera_. I did not have a single political discussion with Himmler,
except in society when he may have touched on this or that, in the
presence of others. The last time I saw Himmler was in Nuremberg when he
spoke to the officers in their mess. When that was I cannot say exactly
but I think it was shortly before the war. I never had a talk with him
on the Jewish question. He himself was, of course, well informed on this
question. He had an organ of his own called the _Schwarze Korps_. And
what his inner attitude toward me was is something that I did not
discover until my stay on the farm. There were denunciations against me
which reached him. It was stated that I was being too humane with the
French prisoners. Shortly after that I received a letter in which he
reproached me and made serious representations against me. I gave no
answer at all. Without having made any previous inquiries with me as to
whether these denunciations were true, he made a serious charge against
me; and I state quite openly that it was actually my feeling at the time
that I might possibly lose my liberty through arrest. These were my
relations with Himmler.
DR. MARX: That is enough.
During this Trial you have heard mentioned the names of a great number
of Higher SS and Police Leaders who played a leading part in the Jewish
persecutions, as for instance, Heydrich, Eichmann, Ohlendorf, and so on.
Were there any connections between you and one of these Higher SS and
Police Leaders?
STREICHER: I heard the names you have mentioned for the first time
during an interrogation here. I did not know these men; they may well
have seen me, but there was never a discussion involving me and the
senior SS or SA leaders. Furthermore, I never was in any of Himmler’s
offices in Berlin, or any Ministry in Berlin. Thus, no conference ever
took place.
DR. MARX: The Prosecution have drawn the conclusion from numerous
articles in _Der Stürmer_, that as early as 1942 and 1943 you must have
had knowledge of the mass executions of Jews which had taken place.
What statement can you make on this, and when, and in what way, did you
hear of the mass executions of Jews which took place in the East?
STREICHER: I had subscribed to the Jewish weekly that appeared in
Switzerland. Sometimes in that weekly there were intimations that
something was not quite in order; and I think it was at the end of 1943
or 1944—I believe 1944—that an article appeared in the Jewish weekly,
in which it said that in the East—I think it was said in Poland—Jews
were disappearing in masses. I then made reference to this in an article
which perhaps will be presented to me later. But I state quite frankly
that the Jewish weekly in Switzerland did not represent for me an
authoritative source, that I did not believe everything in it. This
article did not quote figures; it did not talk about mass executions,
but only about disappearances.
DR. MARX: Have you finished?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: Did you make proposals in _Der Stürmer_ for the solution of
the Jewish question, during the war?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: And in what sense?
STREICHER: As I said yesterday, I represented the point of view that the
Jewish question could be solved only internationally, since there were
Jews in all countries. For that reason we published articles in my
weekly journal referring to the Zionist demand for the creation of a
Jewish state, such as had also been provided for or indicated in the
Balfour Declaration. There were therefore two possibilities for a
solution, a preliminary solution within the countries through
appropriate laws; and then the creation of a Jewish state.
During the war, I think it was in 1941 or 1942, we had written another
article—we were subject to the Berlin censorship—and the censorship
office sent back the proof submitted with the remark that the article
must not be published in which we had proposed Madagascar as the place
for the establishment of a Jewish state. The political relations with
France were given as the reason why that article should not be
published.
DR. MARX: If you had expected that question to be solved by mass
executions, would you then too have written this article?
STREICHER: At that time, at any rate, it would still have been
nonsensical to publish it.
DR. MARX: Did it not make you uneasy to deal with the Jewish question in
a biased way, in a way which left completely out of sight those
qualities of the Jews which can be described as great?
STREICHER: I did not understand this question fully, perhaps I did not
hear it correctly.
DR. MARX: You can be accused of treating, in a biased way, only those
qualities of the Jews that appear disadvantageous to you, whereas the
other qualities of the Jewish people you ignored. What is your
explanation?
STREICHER: I think that this question is really superfluous here. It is
perfectly natural that I, as an anti-Semitic person and as I saw the
Jewish question, was in no way interested in that. Perhaps I did not see
the good traits which you or some others see in the Jews. That is
possible. But at any rate I was not interested in investigating as to
what particular good qualities might be recognized here.
DR. MARX: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: This would seem a good time to break off.
[_A recess was taken._]
DR. MARX: Did you visit concentration camps?
STREICHER: Yes. I visited the Dachau Concentration Camp.
DR. MARX: When was that?
STREICHER: I believe the first time was when all the Gauleiter were
called together. I believe 1935, I do not know definitely, 1934 or 1935,
I do not know.
DR. MARX: At what intervals did you then visit this camp? It is said
that you were in Dachau every 4 weeks.
STREICHER: Altogether I was at Dachau four times.
DR. MARX: It is asserted that after each of your visits in Dachau, Jews
disappeared there.
STREICHER: I do not know whether Jews disappeared.
DR. MARX: What caused you to visit the Dachau Camp repeatedly?
STREICHER: I went to the Dachau Camp to visit Social Democratic and
Communist functionaries from my Gau who were in prison there to have
them introduced to me. I picked out—I do not know how many hundreds of
them there were—but every time I was in Dachau I picked out 10 or 20 of
those of whom it had been ascertained by the Police that they had no
criminal record; I had them picked out from among the inmates, and at
Christmas every year I had them brought in buses to Nuremberg to the
Hotel Deutscher Hof, where I brought them together with their wives and
children and had dinner with them.
I should like to ask the Tribunal, for the benefit of the Nuremberg
public, to permit me to make a very short statement as to why I took
these Communists out. Party proceedings were initiated against me
because I did this. There were rumors which were not true. May I make a
very short statement as to why I did it?
DR. MARX: I should like to ask the Tribunal to approve this, Mr.
President, so that the reasons why the defendant did this may be
ascertained.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as long as it is brief.
DR. MARX: Be brief.
STREICHER: When I walked through the streets of Nuremberg children
approached me and said, “My father is in Dachau.” Women came to me and
asked to get their husbands back. I knew many of these officials from
the time when I spoke at revolutionary meetings, and I could vouch for
these people. I know of only one case where I was wrong in the selection
of those people. All the others behaved impeccably. They kept the word
which they had given me. Thus, perhaps my Party comrades, who sit here
in the dock, see now that I did not want to harm my country but that I
wanted to do, and did do, something humanely good.
DR. MARX: Now I come to the picture books which appeared in _Der
Stürmer_ publishing house. You know that two picture books were
published, one with the title, _Trust No Fox in the Field_, and the
other one with the title, _The Poisonous Toadstool_. Do you assume
responsibility for these picture books?
STREICHER: Yes. May I say, by way of summary, that I assume
responsibility for everything which was written by my assistants or
which came into my publishing house.
DR. MARX: Who was the author of these picture books?
STREICHER: The book _Trust No Fox in the Field_ and _No Jew Under His
Oath_ was done and illustrated by a young woman artist, and she also
wrote the text. The title which appears on the picture book is from Dr.
Martin Luther.
The second picture book was done by the Editor-in-Chief of _Der
Stürmer_, who was a former schoolteacher. Two criminal cases in
Nuremberg, which were tried here in this courtroom, as far as I know,
were the occasion for my publishing these two books. There was a
manufacturer, Louis Schloss, a Jew, who with young Nuremberg girls some
of them still innocent, had...
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, we do not want to hear that now. My question
was only as to who was the author of these picture books and whether you
assumed the responsibility for them?
STREICHER: It is important for the Tribunal, in fact, right for them to
know how it came about that all of a sudden two picture books for young
people appeared in my publishing house. I am making this statement
absolutely objectively. I am speaking here of legal cases. There are
gentlemen here, who are witnesses, who were here in this court and were
present during the proceedings. Only thus can one understand why these
books were published. They were the answer to deeds that had occurred.
DR. MARX: Yes, but we are concerned here only with the accusation made
against you, that thereby you exerted an influence on the minds of young
people which was not beneficial and which could be considered designed
to have a poisonous effect.
STREICHER: And I should like to prove by my statement that we wanted to
protect youth because things had, in fact, occurred.
DR. MARX: Yes, but young persons could hardly understand the Schloss
case, or any such case, could they?
STREICHER: It was a matter of public discussion in Nuremberg and beyond
that all over Germany.
DR. MARX: As far as I am concerned, this question is answered, Mr.
President.
STREICHER: But not for me as defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: You told us that the books were published to answer
things which had occurred here. That is sufficient.
DR. MARX: Witness, another serious accusation made by the Prosecution
against you is that a special issue concerning ritual murders was
published in the publishing house of _Der Stürmer_ and appeared in one
number of _Der Stürmer_. How did this special issue come about and what
was the cause for it? Were you the author of that special issue?
STREICHER: No.
DR. MARX: Who was the author?
STREICHER: My collaborator, the Editor-in-Chief at that time, Karl Holz,
who is now dead. But I assume the responsibility.
DR. MARX: Is it not true that even during the twenties you dealt with
that question in _Der Stürmer_?
STREICHER: Yes, and in public speeches.
DR. MARX: Yes, in public speeches. Why did you now in 1935 stir up again
this doubtlessly very grave matter?
STREICHER: I should like to ask my counsel to express no judgment as to
what I have written; to question me, but not to express judgment. The
Prosecution are going to do that.
You have asked me how this issue came about. I will explain very
briefly...
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. I have to protest against the fact
that Herr Streicher here, in the course of his interrogation by me,
thinks he can criticize the manner in which I put my questions.
Therefore, I ask the Court to give a decision on this, since otherwise I
am not in a position to ask my questions at all.
THE PRESIDENT: You have already stated your position and the Tribunal
has given you full support in your position. Will you please continue?
And let me tell you this, Defendant, that if you are insolent either to
your counsel or to the Tribunal, the Tribunal will not be able to
continue the hearing of your case at this moment. You will kindly treat
your counsel and the Tribunal with due courtesy.
STREICHER: May I ask to say something about this?
THE PRESIDENT: No. Answer the question, please.
DR. MARX: I will go on now with my questioning.
The Prosecution accuse you, in connection with this ritual murder
affair, of having treated the matter without documentary proof, by
referring to a story from the Middle Ages. What, in brief, was your
source?
STREICHER: The sources were given in that issue. Nothing was written
without the sources being given at the same time. There was reference
made to a book written in Greek by a former Rabbi who had been converted
to Christianity. There was reference made to a publication of a high
clergymen of Milan, a book which has appeared in Germany for the last 50
years. Not even under the democratic government did Jews raise
objections to that book. That ritual murder issue refers to court files
which are located in Rome, it refers to files which are in Court. There
are pictures in it which show that in 23 cases the Church itself has
dealt with this question. The Church has canonized 23 non-Jews killed by
ritual murder. Pictures of sculptures, that is, of stone monuments were
shown as illustrations; everywhere the source was pointed out; even a
case in England was mentioned, and one in Kiev, Russia. But in this
connection I should like to say, as I said to a Jewish officer here,
that we never wanted to assert that all Jewry was ready now to commit
ritual murders. But it is a fact that within Jewry there exists a sect
which engaged in these murders, and has done so up until the present. I
have asked my counsel to submit to the Court a file from Pisek in
Czechoslovakia, very recent proceedings. A court of appeal has confirmed
a case of ritual murder. Thus, in conclusion I must say...
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: I object to this statement, Your Honor. After his
counsel has refused to submit it, he insists on stating here the
contents of a court record. Now this is not an orderly way to make
charges against the Jewish people. Streicher says he is asking counsel
to submit. His counsel apparently has refused, whereupon he starts to
give evidence of what he knows, in any case, is a resumé of the matters
which his counsel has declined to submit here. It seems to me that,
having appointed counsel to conduct his case, he has shown repeatedly
that he is not willing to conduct his case in an orderly manner and he
ought to be returned to his cell and any further statements that he
wishes to make to this Court transmitted through his counsel in writing.
This is entirely unfair and in contempt of Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, I think you had better continue.
DR. MARX: I should like to say that that closes this affair. The
essential thing is whether one can say that he treated the case without
documentary proof. The Defense is not interested in the affair at all;
and, according to my recollection, I even suggested to one of the
gentlemen of the Prosecution that this affair perhaps be left out
altogether, because it is really so gruesome and so horrible that it is
better not to treat it. But the defendant only wanted to say that it was
only on the basis of various pieces of evidence that he dealt with the
case, and I believe that is sufficient; that should close the matter.
Now, Herr Streicher, you fall again and again into the mistake of going
too far in your explanations and of discussing things which can be
considered propaganda on your part. I should like to ask you now for the
last time to stick to the questions and leave out everything else. It is
in your own interest. You are accused of having carried on various
activities in your Gau, which were Crimes Against Humanity, of having
mistreated people who lived in your Gau. Thus you are accused of having
sought out a political prisoner, a certain Steinruck, in his cell and of
having beaten him. Is that correct?
STREICHER: Yes.
DR. MARX: Was Steinruck a Jew?
STREICHER: No.
DR. MARX: For what reason did you do that?
STREICHER: Steinruck, in a public place, in the presence of many
witnesses, had made derogatory statements about the Führer, libelous
statements. He was at police headquarters. I had spoken to the Police
President about it and told him that I should like to look at that
Steinruck once. I went with my adjutant—the Göring report says that a
Party member, Holz, was there too, but that is not correct—I went with
my adjutant to police headquarters. The same Police President, who later
denounced me to Reich Marshal Göring, took me to Steinruck’s cell. We
went into the cell; I stated here that I had come with the intention of
talking to him, talking to him reasonably. We talked to him. But he
behaved so cowardly that it became necessary at the moment that he be
chastised. I do not mind stating here that I am sorry about that case,
that I regret it as a slip.
DR. MARX: Then it is asserted that in August 1938 you beat up an editor,
Burger. Is that correct?
STREICHER: No, that is not correct. If I had beaten him up, then I would
say so here. But I believe that my adjutant and somebody else had an
argument with him.
DR. MARX: What about the incident in the Künstlerhaus in Munich?
STREICHER: I went to Munich to the Inn Künstlerstätte, or something like
that. I was received by the manager. Then a young man came up to me,
drunk and quarrelsome, and shouted at me. The manager protested and
ordered him out of the place. But the drunken young fellow came back
again and again and then my chauffeur grabbed him and my son helped.
They took him into a room and beat him up and then the proprietor of the
inn thanked me for having rid him of the drunkard.
And now I should like to have the Tribunal’s permission to state very
briefly my position on one case which I believe the Prosecution also
have dropped, where I was accused of sadistic tendencies...
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant, you know perfectly well that that incident has
been stricken from the record and is not, therefore, mentioned against
you, so that it is quite unnecessary to go into it. The Tribunal cannot
hear you on it.
DR. MARX: Witness, from the so-called Göring report I should like to
submit to you some points which have been presented by the Prosecution.
You know that after the action of November 1938, in the district of
Franconia, Aryanization of Jewish property was undertaken to the utmost
extent. Would you like to make a statement about that?
STREICHER: Here in the Göring report is a reference to a statement of
the deceased Party member, Holz. In that statement it is pointed out
that Holz came to see me after that action, that he made a report about
the action and likewise declared the action to be wrong; he said
furthermore that now that this had happened, he considered it necessary
to go further and Aryanize the property. The Göring report states that I
then told Holz that could not be done and that I opposed it. Then it
states further that Holz said to me that he still thought it would be
right if one were to do it. We could then get out of it the means for
the establishment of a Gau school. Holz also states that I said
something like: “Well, Holz, if you believe you can do it, then go ahead
and do it.”
I want to state here that what Party member Holz said is true. I was
opposed at first; and then, acting on a sudden impulse, which I cannot
understand today, I said, “Well, if you can do it, then go ahead and do
it.” I want to state that at that time when I said it, I did not believe
at all that it was to be done or would be done; but it was done. The
Reich Marshal, as Delegate for the Four Year Plan, later stated his
position on it in Berlin, sharply rejecting it. Only at that time did I
find out exactly how Holz accomplished this Aryanization. I had a talk
with him, got into a serious dispute; and our friendly relations were
broken off at that time. Holz volunteered in an armored unit, went to
the front, and resigned as deputy. I returned from Berlin to Nuremberg,
and later there appeared in Nuremberg a Police Inspector sent by the
Reich Marshal in his capacity as Delegate for the Four Year Plan. He
reported to me and asked me if I would agree to an investigation of the
whole matter, and I stated that I would welcome the investigation. Then
the investigation took place. The Aryanization was repealed, and it was
established that Holz personally had not gotten any material advantage
from it. Aryanization was then taken over by the State, repealed, and
taken over.