DR. MARX: Is it not true the allegations, made by the chief of the
publishing firm Fink before the Party Court and also even before that,
at a police interrogation, were different, in the main points, from your
present statements?
STREICHER: The whole thing was that Fink, the publishing house manager,
was called to police headquarters and interrogated. The police Chief was
interested in the hearing since for many years he had been a friend of
mine and of my family. Fink returned from the interrogation completely
upset. He paced up and down in front of me and shouted, “I was
threatened, I have made statements which are not true. I am blackguard.
I am a criminal.” A witness of that incident was my chauffeur. I calmed
him down and told him, “I was called in for a hearing once, too. I was
even imprisoned once. I will give you opportunity...”
THE PRESIDENT: Is it necessary to go into such detail in this matter?
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. Perhaps this is necessary, because
in this very report reference is made to the testimony of Fink; and an
attempt is made to prove with this that the explanation made by the
Defendant Streicher is wrong, that he gave the order to purchase this
stock, possibly under pressure, and that he approved of it, whereas he
counters that he knew neither that these shares were to be bought at
such a low price nor that blackmail was to be used.
If this is taken for granted, then, of course, we can close the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what he has already said. He has said that quite
clearly, has he not? I was only suggesting that it was not necessary to
go into such detail in the matter.
DR. MARX: Witness, it may be of some importance to state what the
development of _Der Stürmer_ has been since 1933, as far as circulation
is concerned. Give us a short statement on the circulation of _Der
Stürmer_, and then I shall put another question to you.
STREICHER: _Der Stürmer_ appeared in 1923 in octavo format, and in the
beginning it had a circulation of 2,000 to 3,000 copies. In the course
of time the circulation increased to 10,000. At that time _Der Stürmer_
circulated—until 1933 really—only in Nuremberg, in my Gau, perhaps
also in Southern Bavaria. The publisher was a bookseller and he worked
first with one man, then with two. This is proof that the circulation
was really small.
In 1933—but I say this with certain reservations because it may be that
the publisher did not always tell me the correct circulation figures and
I had no written contract with him—I say with reservations, that in
1933 the circulation was 25,000 copies.
In 1935 the publisher died; and at that time it was, I believe, 40,000.
Then an expert took over the publishing house and organized it to cover
all of Germany. The circulation increased then to 100,000, and went up
as high as 600,000. It fluctuated, decreased, and then dropped during
the war; I cannot say exactly but I believe it was about 150,000 to
200,000.
DR. MARX: You said that that new man organized the circulation to cover
all of Germany. Was the Party machinery utilized in this, and were not
industries and other offices—the German Labor Front, for
instance—utilized in order to increase the circulation forcibly?
STREICHER: Well, the attitude of the Party was made manifest in a
letter, which was sent to all Gaue, signed by Bormann. There it was
expressly pointed out that _Der Stürmer_ was not a Party organ and had
nothing to do with the Party. Thereupon several Gauleiter saw this an
occasion for ordering that _Der Stürmer_ should not appear in their Gaue
any more. Now it is clear that within the organizations there were Party
members who, because of idealism or for other reasons, worked to
increase the distribution of _Der Stürmer_. However, I myself, neither
in writing nor orally, ever issued any order to any Party organization
to support _Der Stürmer_.
DR. MARX: Herr Streicher, even, before 1933 you came in contact with the
courts on various occasions, both because of your articles and because
of your attitude as evidenced in _Der Stürmer_. Would you give us a
short statement as to how often that occurred and what consequences it
had for you?
STREICHER: How often? I cannot answer that exactly now, but it was very
often. I was frequently given a court summons. You ask me about the
consequences. I was many times in prison, but I can say proudly that in
the sentences it repeatedly stated “an incorruptible fanatic for the
truth.”
That was the consequence of my activity as a speaker and writer, but
perhaps it is important to add the following: I never was arraigned
because of criminal charges, but only because of my anti-Semitic
activity, and the charge was brought by an organization of citizens of
the Jewish faith. The chairman filed charges repeatedly when we made a
slip in speaking and thus exposed ourselves to prosecution on the basis
of the laws and regulations existing at that time. But perhaps I may
also point out here that the Jewish Justizrat, Dr. Süssheim, the
Prosecuting Attorney, stated before the court here in this courtroom,
“Your Honors, he is our inexorable enemy, but he is a fanatic for the
truth. He is convinced of what he does; he is honest about it.”
THE PRESIDENT: What years were they that you were repeatedly in jail?
STREICHER: That was, of course, before 1933. The first time I went to
Landsberg, to prison, because I had taken part in the Hitler Putsch.
Then I was sentenced to three and a half months in prison in Nuremberg,
where I am now. Then I got three months...
THE PRESIDENT: You needn’t bother with the details.
STREICHER: That is to say, before 1933 I was repeatedly given prison
sentences or fined.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, the Göring report also mentions the fact that
the Defendant Streicher was personally interested in various Jewish
plants, allegedly in order to get some capital out of them. However, I
am of the opinion that it is not essential to deal with these points.
The same applies to the fact that the house on Lake of Constance was
sold, and to whom. I do not know whether the defendant should make any
statements about this here. In my opinion there is no cause to ask him
any questions concerning that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you could leave that and see whether it is taken
up in cross-examination. If it is, then you may re-examine him.
DR. MARX: Yes, certainly.
Mr. President, this concludes my questions to the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any members of defendants’ counsel wish to ask
questions of the defendant?
[_There was no response._]
The Prosecution?
LIEUTENANT COLONEL J. M. G. GRIFFITH-JONES (Junior Counsel for the
United Kingdom): If the Tribunal pleases.
When you handed over your Party to Hitler in 1922, did you know his
policy and what was to become the policy of the Nazi Party?
STREICHER: The policy? First I should like to say, “no.” At that time
one could not speak of things which could not exist even as thoughts.
The policy then was to create a new faith for the German people, that
is, a faith which would deny the chaos and disorder and which would
bring about a return to order.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: May I take it that, within a short course of
time, you knew the policy, the policy according to the Party program and
according to _Mein Kampf_?
STREICHER: I did not need a Party program. I admit frankly that I never
read it in its entirety. At that time programs were not important, but
mass meetings...
THE PRESIDENT: That’s not an answer to the question. The question was
whether, a short time after 1922, you knew the policy as indicated in
the Party program and in _Mein Kampf_.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You knew, did you not, that the policy included
the Anschluss with Austria? Can you answer that “yes” or “no”?
STREICHER: No. There was never any talk about Austria. I do not remember
that the Führer ever spoke about the fact that Austria should be
annexed.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only want you to answer my question. My
question was: Did you know that the Führer’s policy was the annexation
of Austria to Germany? I understand your answer to be “no.” Is that
correct?
STREICHER: That he intended it? No, that I did not know.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did you know that he intended to take over
Czechoslovakia or at least the Sudetenland?
STREICHER: No.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Did you know that from the beginning in _Mein
Kampf_ his ultimate objective was Lebensraum?
STREICHER: What I read in _Mein Kampf_ is marked in red. The book has
been confiscated. I only read that. I read only what concerns the Jewish
question; I did not read anything else. However, that we had the
objective of acquiring Lebensraum for our people, that goes without
saying. I personally also had set myself the objective of contributing
in some way to providing a future for the surplus children.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. May I take it that during the years
1922 and 1923, as editor and owner of _Der Stürmer_, and as a Gauleiter
from 1925, you did everything you could to put the Nazi Party into
power?
STREICHER: Yes; that is to be taken as a matter of course.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And after 1933 did you continuously support and
issue propaganda on behalf of the Nazi Party’s policy?
STREICHER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Not only in respect to the Jewish question, but
to the foreign policy as well?
STREICHER: No, that is not correct. In _Der Stürmer_ there is not a
single article to be found which dealt with foreign policy. I devoted
myself exclusively...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: That is quite enough. I am not going to occupy
very much time with this matter. But I would ask you to look at Document
Number D-802.
My Lord, this is a new exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Which will be what?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Exhibit Number GB-327.
My Lord, I am sorry, but the document seems to be missing for the
moment. Perhaps I might read the extract.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Let me just read to you an extract from an
article which you wrote in _Der Stürmer_ of March 1938, immediately
after the Anschluss with Austria. I want you to tell me whether or not
you are advocating the Nazi policy in regard to Austria.
“Our Lord is making provision that the power of the Jews may not
extend to heaven itself. What was only a dream up to a few days
ago has now become reality. The brother nation of Austria has
returned home to the Reich.”
And then, a few lines farther down:
“We are entering into glorious times, a Greater Germany without
Jews.”
Do you say that you are not there issuing propaganda on behalf of the
Nazi policy?
STREICHER: I did not indulge in propaganda politics, for Austria was
already annexed. I just welcomed the fact. I did not need to make any
more propaganda about it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. Perhaps you’ll tell me what you mean
by the “Greater Germany” that you are approaching. What Greater Germany
are you approaching in March 1938, a Germany greater than it was after
the Anschluss with Austria?
STREICHER: A Greater Germany, a living area in which all Germans,
German-speaking people, people of German blood, can live together.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do I understand that you are advocating
Lebensraum, greater space, not yet owned by Germany?
STREICHER: Not at first, no. At first it was merely a question of
Austria and Germany. The Austrians are Germans and, therefore, belong to
a Greater Germany.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I won’t argue with you. I will just ask you
once more, what do you mean by the “Greater Germany” that you are
approaching in March of 1938?
STREICHER: I have already explained, a Germany where all those can live
and work together who speak German and have German blood.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Would you look at Document Number D-818, which
will become Exhibit Number GB-328. Perhaps I can carry on. In November
of 1938, after Munich, did you yourself personally send a telegram to
Konrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten-German Party?
STREICHER: If it says so here, then it is true. I do not recall it.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me refresh your recollection as to what you
said, “Without your courageous preparatory work the great task would not
have succeeded.”
Are you there advocating and issuing propaganda in support of the policy
of the Nazi Government?
STREICHER: I have to ask you again, would you please repeat your
question?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I am asking you whether or not that telegram,
which you sent to Konrad Henlein and reprinted in your newspaper under a
picture of that gentleman—I am asking you whether or not that was
propaganda in support of the Nazi policy, Nazi foreign policy?
STREICHER: I have to say the same to this as I said before. That was a
telegram of greeting, of thanks. I did not have to make propaganda any
more because the Munich Agreement had already taken place.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I put it to you and I’ll leave it. I’ll put it
to you that throughout the years from 1933 until 1944 or 1945 you were
in fact doing everything you could to support the policy of the
Government, both domestically and in regard to its foreign affairs.
STREICHER: As far as possible within my field of activity, yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I want to turn now to the question of the Jews.
May I remind you of the speech that you made on 1 April 1933, that is to
say, the day of the boycott.
My Lord, this will be found in the original document book, Document
Number M-33. It was not actually put in before. It now becomes Exhibit
Number GB-329. It is in the document book on Page 15, in the original
document book which the Tribunal have.
[_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I give you the document book. If you
want to see the original, you may do so in every case. [_The document
book was submitted to the defendant._]
“For 14 years we have been crying to the German nation, ‘German
people, learn to recognize your true enemy,’ and 14 years ago
the German Philistines listened and then declared that we
preached religious hatred. Today German people have awakened;
even all over the world there is talk of the eternal Jews. Never
since the beginning of the world and the creation of man has
there been a nation which dared to fight against the nation of
blood-suckers and extortioners who, for a thousand years, have
spread all over the world.”
And then I go down to the last line of the next paragraph:
“It was left to our Movement to expose the eternal Jew as a mass
murderer.”
Is it right that for 14 years you had been repeating in Germany, “German
people, learn to recognize your true enemy”?
STREICHER: I state first of all that what you have given me here has
nothing to do with that. You have given me an article...
THE PRESIDENT: You are asked a question. You are asked whether it is
true that for 14 years you had been repeating, to Germany, “Learn to
recognize your true enemy.” Is that true?
STREICHER: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And in doing so, is it true that you had been
preaching religious hatred?
STREICHER: No.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look at...
STREICHER: May I be permitted to make a statement concerning this
answer? In my weekly, _Der Stürmer_, I repeatedly stated that for me the
Jews are not a religious group but a race, a people.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And do you think to call them “blood-suckers,”
“a nation of blood-suckers and extortioners”—do you think that’s
preaching hatred?
STREICHER: I beg your pardon. I have not understood you?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You may call them a race or a nation, whichever
you like, now; but you were saying, on 1 April 1933, that they were a
“nation of blood-suckers and extortioners.” Do you call that preaching
hatred?
STREICHER: That is a statement, the expression of a conviction which can
be proved on the basis of historical facts.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Understand me. I did not ask you whether it was
a fact or not. I am asking whether you called it preaching hatred. Your
answer is “yes” or “no.”
STREICHER: No, it is not preaching hatred; it is just a statement of
facts.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you look two pages further on in that last
document, M-33, and do you see the fourth paragraph from the end of the
extract? That is Page 17 of the document book: “As long as I stand at
the head of the struggle, this struggle will be conducted so honestly
that the eternal Jew will derive no joy from it.”
STREICHER: That I wrote; that was right.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And you were, were you not, one of those who
did stand and continue to stand at the head of that struggle?
STREICHER: Did I stand at the head? I am too modest a man for that. But
I do claim to have declared my conviction and my knowledge clearly and
unmistakably.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Why did you say that so long as you were at the
head of it, the Jew would derive no joy from it?
STREICHER: Because I considered myself a man whom destiny had placed in
a position to enlighten people on the Jewish question.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: And “enlightenment”—is that another word for
persecution? Do you mean by “enlightenment,” “persecution”?
STREICHER: I did not understand that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do you mean by “enlightenment” the word
“persecution”? Is that why the Jew was to have no joy from it, from your
enlightenment?
STREICHER: I ask to have the question repeated.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I can show it to you and we will repeat the
question as loud as you want it. Do you mean by “enlightenment” the word
“persecution”? Do you hear that?
STREICHER: I hear “enlightenment” and “production.” I mean by
“enlightenment” telling another person something which he does not yet
know.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We won’t go on with that. You know, do you not,
that starting with the boycott which you led yourself in 1933, the Jews
thereafter were, during the course of the years, deprived of the right
to vote, deprived of holding any public office, excluded from the
professions; demonstrations were conducted against them in 1938, they
were fined a billion marks after that, they were forced to wear a yellow
star, they had their own separate seats to sit on, and they had their
houses and their businesses taken away from them. Do you call that
“enlightenment”?
STREICHER: That has nothing to do with what I wrote, nothing to do with
it. I did not issue the orders. I did not make the laws. I was not asked
when laws were prepared. I had nothing to do with these laws and orders.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: But as those laws and orders were passed you
were applauding them, and you were going on abusing the Jews and asking
for more and more orders to be passed; isn’t that a fact?
STREICHER: I ask to have put to me which law I applauded.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Now, you told the Tribunal yesterday, did you
not, that you were responsible, you thought, for the Nuremberg Decrees,
which you had been advocating for years before they came into force;
isn’t that a fact?
STREICHER: The Nuremberg Decrees? I did not make them. I was not asked
beforehand, and I did not sign them either. But I state here that these
laws are the same laws which the Jewish people have as their own. It is
the greatest and most important act of legislation which a modern nation
has at any time made for its protection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is the time to break off.
[_The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours._]
_Afternoon Session_
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE (Deputy Chief Prosecutor for the United Kingdom):
My Lord, I wonder if the Tribunal would be good enough to consider
setting aside a half hour some time for the discussion of the documents
of the Defendant Von Schirach. We are ready to clear up outstanding
points at any time that is suitable to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: [_Turning to the defendant._] Now, I just want
to ask you a few questions as to the part you played in the various
actions against the Jews between 1933 and 1939.
Will you look at Document M-6, which is at Page 20 in the document book
that you have before you, Page 22 in the document book that the Tribunal
have in English. It is Page 20 in the German document book; M-6, which
is already Exhibit Number GB-170.
Now, I just want to refer to what you said about the Nuremberg Decrees.
You told us this morning that you thought when they had been passed that
that was already the final solution of the Jewish question. Will you
look at the paragraph beginning in the center of the page, “However, to
those who believe...”:
“However, to those who believe that the Jewish question has been
finally solved and the matter thus settled for Germany by the
Nuremberg Decrees, be it said that the battle continues—world
Jewry itself is seeing to that anyhow—and we shall only get
through this battle victoriously if every member of the German
people knows that his very existence is at stake. The work of
enlightenment carried on by the Party seems to me to be more
necessary than ever today, even though many Party members seem
to think that these matters are no longer real or urgent.”
STREICHER: Yes, I wrote that.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: What do you mean by saying “the battle
continues,” if you have already solved the Jewish problem by the
issuance of the Nuremberg Decrees?
STREICHER: I have already stated today that the solution of the Jewish
problem was regarded by me as having to be solved, first of all, within
the country and then in conjunction with other nations. Thus “the battle
continues” means that in the International Anti-Semitic Union, which I
had formed and which had representatives from all countries in it, the
question was discussed as to what could be done from an international
point of view to terminate the Jewish problem.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Are we, therefore, to take it that everything
that you said and wrote after 1936 was in connection with an
international problem and had nothing to do with the Jews in Germany as
such?
STREICHER: Yes, mainly international, of course.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me just refer you to half way through the
next paragraph, “_Der Stürmer’s_ 15 years’ work of enlightenment has
already led an army of those who know, millions strong, to National
Socialism.” Is that so?
STREICHER: That is correct.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: You see, you were telling the Tribunal this
morning that up to 1933, and indeed afterwards, you said the circulation
of your paper was only very small. Is it true, in fact, that your 15
years’ work had led an army, millions strong, to National Socialism?
STREICHER: I have said today that the moment the press was politically
co-ordinated, 3,000 daily newspapers were committed to the purpose of
enlightenment about the Jewish problem. There were 3,000 daily papers in
addition to _Der Stürmer_.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Very well. I don’t think you need go on. Let me
just finish reading through that paragraph:
“The continued work of _Der Stürmer_ will help to insure that
down to the last man every German will, with heart and hand,
join the ranks of those whose aim it is to crush the head of the
serpent Pan-Judah.”
Wait one moment, let me ask my question. There is nothing there about an
international problem. You are addressing yourself to the German people,
are you not?
STREICHER: In that article? Yes. And if that article was read abroad,
then also to countries abroad, but as to the remark about crushing the
serpent’s head, that is a biblical expression.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Will you now let us discuss for a moment the
breaking up of the synagogue in Nuremberg, which you have told about, on
the 10th of August of 1938. Will you look at Page 41 of the book that
you have in front of you, Page 42 of the English document book that the
Tribunal has.
Now we have heard your explanation of that breaking up of the synagogue.
The _Fränkische Tageszeitung_ at the 11th of August states this, “In
Nuremberg the synagogue is being demolished. Julius Streicher himself
inaugurated this work by a speech lasting more than an hour and a half.”
Were you talking to the inhabitants of Nuremberg upon the architectural
value of their city for an hour and a half on the 10th of August 1938?
STREICHER: I no longer know in detail what I said, but I refer to what
you have remarked and what you find important. There was a branch of the
Propaganda Ministry in Nuremberg. The young Regierungsrat had press
conferences with the editors every day, and at that time he told the
editors during a press conference that Streicher would speak and that
the synagogue was being demolished and that this was to be kept secret.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I asked you, were you talking for that hour and
a half on the architectural beauties of Nuremberg and not against the
Jews? Is that what you are telling us?
STREICHER: That, too, of course.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: At the press conference to which you
referred—you no doubt have seen the document; it is Page 40 of the
Tribunal’s document book—do you remember that it was arranged that the
show should be staged in a big way, the show of pulling down the
synagogue? What was the object of arranging the demonstration to
demolish that synagogue in such a big way?
STREICHER: I was merely the speaker. What you are intimating here, that
was done by the representative of the Ministry of Propaganda; but I
would not object to it if you decided to assume, let me put it like
that, that I would naturally have been in favor of making a big show if
I had been asked.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Let me just ask you now a word about the
demonstrations which followed that in November of that year—My Lord, I
refer to Page 43 of the document book; 42 of the German—as I understand
it, you tell us that you disapproved of those demonstrations that took
place and they took place without your knowledge or previous knowledge.
Is that correct, “yes” or “no”?
STREICHER: Yes, it is correct.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I just want to remind you of what you said on
the following day, the 10th of November. This is an account of what
happened:
“In Nuremberg and Fürth there were demonstrations by the crowd
against the Jewish gang of murderers. These lasted until the
early hours of the morning.”