THE PRESIDENT: Then you have the supplementary applications for
witnesses, have you not?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You’d better deal with those, had you not?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, one of them, I understand, is a person who made an
affidavit which has been used by the Prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: I believe that is the witness Uiberreither.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it is the other one, is it not? Who are the
two?
DR. SAUTER: One is, I believe...
THE PRESIDENT: Marsalek.
DR. SAUTER: No, not Marsalek, but Uiberreither. Marsalek, Mr.
President,...
THE PRESIDENT: I have your application before me for Marsalek. You do
not want Marsalek?
DR. SAUTER: No, that must be an error.
THE PRESIDENT: Dated the 15th of April 1946. Anyhow, you do not want
him?
DR. SAUTER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then you only want one, do you?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is Uiberreither?
DR. SAUTER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Prosecution any objection to him?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No, we have not, Your Honor. That affidavit I
believe, was introduced by us in connection with the Kaltenbrunner case,
an affidavit by Uiberreither.
THE PRESIDENT: You have no objection?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Thank you, Dr. Sauter. We will consider your
application in respect of documents and the witness. We will consider
your application, and we will now proceed with the case of Streicher.
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to make a
motion to the case of Streicher. I desire to move that Streicher’s
testimony found on Pages 8495, and 8496 of April 26th be expunged from
the Record, and on Page 8549 of yesterday’s testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you wish to say anything about that?
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. Unfortunately, I did not completely
understand the motions made by the Chief Prosecutor, Mr. Justice
Jackson, because at that moment I was busy with something else. As far
as I understood, he dealt with the deletion.
THE PRESIDENT: I can tell you what the motion was. The motion was that
passages on Pages 8494, 8495, and 8496, and on Page 8549 be expunged
from the record.
DR. MARX: I understand. I would like to say, from the point of view of
the Defense, that I agree that these passages be expunged from the
record, because I am of the opinion that they are in no way relevant for
the defense of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The passages to which Mr. Justice Jackson has drawn our
attention are, in the opinion of the Tribunal, highly improper
statements made by the Defendant Streicher. They are, in the opinion of
the Tribunal, entirely irrelevant, and they have been admitted by
counsel for the Defendant Streicher to be entirely irrelevant, and they
will, therefore, be expunged from the record.
And now, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: May I now, with the permission of the Tribunal, continue with
the examination of witnesses? I now call the witness Friedrich Strobel
to the stand.
[_The witness Strobel took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
FRIEDRICH STROBEL (Witness): Friedrich Strobel.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]
You may sit down.
DR. MARX: Witness, on 3 December 1938 were you at a meeting of the
Jurists’ association (Rechtswahrerbund) in Nuremberg?
STROBEL: Yes.
DR. MARX: During that meeting the Defendant Streicher is supposed to
have spoken; is that correct?
STROBEL: Yes.
DR. MARX: Would you please tell us what the Defendant Streicher stated
on that occasion concerning the demonstrations of 9 November 1938?
STROBEL: He said, “I should not have carried out this action in this
way. In such a manner it is impossible to fight a power like World
Jewry.” Then he added, “What has been done cannot be undone,” and some
more phrases of that kind.
DR. MARX: Is it correct that at that time you were surprised that
Streicher in public objected against that action, which had been ordered
by the highest authorities?
STROBEL: Yes. Streicher frequently spoke against measures and directives
of the Government when he was of a different opinion, as on this
occasion. I had the impression that apparently he had been passed over;
for in his speech there was a certain malicious undertone to the effect
that the matter was having unfavorable aftereffects. I wondered at the
time whether Streicher really had a lucid interval and realized how
harmful that anti-Jewish action was, or whether merely his vanity was
wounded, or whether he felt that a too quick and radical an
extermination of the Jews would put an end also to his own importance.
DR. MARX: Witness, these are opinions which you are stating and not
facts; I did not ask you about that.
STROBEL: Well, that was my impression.
DR. MARX: All right, I ask you now: On 9 and 10 November 1938 were you
present in Nuremberg?
STROBEL: Yes, I believe so. I do not remember exactly, but I believe it
was on the night of 8 to 9 November 1938 that that action was carried
out. It was on 7 November that Herr Vom Rath was shot, and on the 8th he
died, and the night after these things occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: We needn’t argue about whether it was the 8th or the 9th.
It doesn’t matter, does it?
DR. MARX: The question which I want to put to you now is: After that
night during which the demonstrations against the Jewish population took
place, what observations did you make on the following morning and
later, about the attitude of the population in Nuremberg toward these
demonstrations?
STROBEL: I was informed about that action by the personnel in my office.
Thereupon I walked into the city and looked around in the streets.
People were standing in front of the damaged stores. I had the
impression that the vast majority of the population was benumbed and
speechless. People shook their heads, looked at each other, muttered
something, and then walked away. But, generally, I had the impression
that people could not speak aloud, and later I heard that those who had
objected to these things were treated rather badly, when they were
overheard by informers.
DR. MARX: But the general impression was, was it not, that the
population definitely disapproved of that action, and that general
indignation was recognizable though not loudly expressed?
STROBEL: Yes. The Russian radio at the time hit the nail on the head by
saying, “Let it be said to the credit of the German people that they had
no part in the events and that they were sleeping.”
In fact most people heard of the events of the night only on the
following morning.
THE PRESIDENT: What has this got to do with the Defendant Streicher?
DR. MARX: Well, the Defendant Streicher has been accused of openly
approving this action in his speech on 10 November. The Defendant
Streicher also maintains in his defense that it was an action ordered by
the top authorities and not a spontaneous demonstration of the people.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that a number of people in Nuremberg, or even
the whole of the people of Nuremberg, disapproved of it wouldn’t show
that Streicher disapproved of it.
DR. MARX: Yes, but he maintains that there could have been no question
of an incitement, since the action had been ordered and directed from
the top, whereas, in the case of an incitement, the action would have
been started by the people themselves. That was his conclusion.
STROBEL: May I state my opinion about that? The action was definitely
not started by the people themselves, because even the majority of the
SA men who took part in it did so against their will. It was an order
from above; it was an organized affair. The assertion of Dr. Goebbels
that the German people had risen spontaneously was an intentional
incrimination of the German people.
DR. MARX: I have no more questions to ask of this witness, Mr.
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other of the defendants’ counsel wish to ask him
any questions?
[_There was no response._]
Does the Prosecution wish to cross-examine?
[_There was no response._]
Then the witness can retire.
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, I now call the witness
Ernst Hiemer.
MARSHAL: There is no witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is he not there?
MARSHAL: We have no witness there.
THE PRESIDENT: He says, Dr. Marx, that he is not there, and that there
are no witnesses there.
DR. MARX: Excuse me, Mr. President. The witness Hiemer is in the prison
here, and I talked to him personally.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did you inform the prison authorities yesterday
that you were going to call him?
DR. MARX: I spoke to the Marshal on Monday and asked that Hiemer be
brought up on Tuesday, as far as I can recall. There must be a
misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, have you got any other witnesses besides Hiemer?
DR. MARX: Yes, the witness Wurzbacher.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he? Where is Wurzbacher?
DR. MARX: Wurzbacher is also here in prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, while he is being brought, can you take up the time
in dealing with your documents?
DR. MARX: Yes. We can do that.
MARSHAL: They will be here in about 5 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Go on, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, before coming to the question of the documents,
I should like to point out the following: During the session yesterday
afternoon the Prosecution submitted several documents which were new to
me, and I have not yet had an opportunity of stating my position with
regard to them. Nor have I yet had a chance of speaking to the Defendant
Streicher about them. From the point of view of the Defense, I consider
it necessary to explain my position with regard to these very important
documents; and I believe that I must now examine all the articles of
_Der Stürmer_ to see whether Streicher used in some way or other the
various pieces of information from the _Israelitisches Wochenblatt_; for
his defense is, “I did not believe what I read there.” If he did not use
these items of information in any of his articles, then his answer is,
to a certain extent, corroborated. Therefore I have to review the
matter...
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. In one particular article it was
demonstrated yesterday in cross-examination, as I understood it, that he
had used an article from the Jewish paper.
DR. MARX: Yes. I know that article. It is one of 4 November 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Marx, what exactly are you applying for now?
What is your motion?
DR. MARX: My motion is that the Tribunal permit me to supplement my
document book so as to be able to state my position with regard to
yesterday’s presentation of documents by the Prosecution by submitting
counter documents of my own. My presentation of documents would be
incomplete if I had no chance of replying to these new documents
submitted by the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Marx; the Tribunal grants your motion provided
you make it in the ordinary way, in writing, referring to any passages
which you contend throw light on the passages which have been put in by
the Prosecution.
DR. MARX: Yes. May I now begin to discuss the individual documents?
Document Number Streicher-1 shows that the newspaper _Der Stürmer_,
according to the decision of the Führer, was not an official Party organ
and was not even entitled to carry the state insignia while all other
press organs displayed the insignia conspicuously. That is evidence that
the paper _Der Stürmer_ was a private publication of the Defendant
Streicher.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, you are going to offer these documents in
evidence and give them exhibit numbers, are you not?
DR. MARX: I consider these documents as submitted; I have discussed the
subject with the Prosecution, and the Prosecution had no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: You see, there is a written transcript being taken down,
and unless you offer each document in evidence and say that will be
exhibit number so-and-so, it does not get into the transcript. If you
like you can do it in a group and say, “I offer in evidence such and
such documents as Exhibits 1 to 100,” or whatever number you wish.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The book I have before me does contain certain exhibit
numbers; for instance, Page 1 to 4 appears to be Exhibit Number
Streicher-1 and Page 5 is Exhibit Number Streicher-5; Page 6 is Exhibit
Number Streicher-6; Page 7 is Exhibit Number Streicher-7.
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am told that Page 4 is Exhibit Number Streicher-1; is
it?
DR. MARX: The pagination made here is completely different from the one
I made and consequently it is now arranged altogether differently.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, let us get on. You only have to tell us what
documents you are offering in evidence and under what exhibit numbers.
Dr. Marx, you can do it later if you want to.
DR. MARX: I further submit Exhibit Number Streicher-5, an excerpt from
an editorial of _Der Stürmer_ of July 1938. Number 28. This article,
which was not written by the Defendant Streicher but by Karl Holz, is
worded in very sharp language and says that vengeance will break loose
one day and all Jewry will be exterminated. But the salient point
here—the article seems to have been provoked by a letter which was sent
from Nuremberg to New York, and which stated that Germany in the case of
war, would be destroyed from the air. And so this article also falls
under the claim which the defendant made yesterday, namely that his
sharp language was always caused by some preceding action from another
side. That is Document Number Streicher-5 and I ask permission to submit
it as an exhibit under that number.
Then I submit as Document Number Streicher-6, an excerpt from Number 40
of _Der Stürmer_ of October 1938. I think I can dispense with comment on
it because my argument can be seen from the document itself; or is it
necessary to speak about it?
THE PRESIDENT: No, you need not speak about them; just put them in.
DR. MARX: I submit as Document Number Streicher-7, an excerpt from the
_Völkischer Beobachter_ of 25 February 1942, in answer to Document M-31
of the trial brief against the defendant.
Then I submit Document Number Streicher-8, an excerpt from the
_Völkischer Beobachter_ of 8 February 1939, Page 2.
Then as Document Number Streicher-9, an excerpt from the political
testament of Adolf Hitler, dated 29 April 1945.
As Document Number Streicher-10, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, February
1935, Number 8, Page 4.
As Document Number Streicher-11, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of
September 1935, Number 38.
I am giving the next page the Document Number Streicher-12. That is an
excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, of September 1935, Number 38, Page 9.
Document Number Streicher-13 is an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_, of
January 1938. Number 1.
Document Number Streicher-14, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of May 1938,
Number 20.
As Document Number Streicher-15, an excerpt from _Der Stürmer_ of 5
November 1943, Number 45.
As Document Number Streicher-16, of the Defense, a document submitted by
the Prosecution under number 759-PS.
As Document Number Streicher-17, speeches made by Himmler in April 1943,
on 4 October 1943, and 23 September 1943 at Posen and Kharkov.
As Document Number Streicher-18, a photostat of the special issue of
_Der Stürmer_ of May 1939, Number 20.
I ask to have these documents admitted. I have limited myself to the
utmost.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, is it?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are the witnesses ready yet? Perhaps we might as well
adjourn for 10 minutes now.
[_A recess was taken._]
[_The witness Ernst Hiemer took the stand._]
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERNST HIEMER (Witness): Ernst Hiemer.
DR. MARX: May I just interrupt for a minute, Mr. President. First of all
I would like to state that I am by no means holding the Marshal
responsible for the mistake. The matter was as follows: The mistake in
requesting the witness...
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite all right, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: I consider it my duty to state here that the Marshal is not
responsible for the mistake about the bringing in of the witness. One of
my assistants spoke yesterday with a gentleman...
THE PRESIDENT: We quite understand, Dr. Marx.
DR. MARX: Then, Mr. President, I should like to submit Documents Number
Streicher 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 up to 18. I do not know whether it is clear
now. The numbers are 1 and 5, and from 6 through 18. Lacking are 2, 3,
and 4, which were dropped. All other exhibit numbers are contained
therein, Numbers 1 and from 5 through 18.
THE PRESIDENT: You include 19, don’t you?
DR. MARX: No, Numbers 19 and 20 are not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I beg your pardon. I think I must have been wrong. I
have taken down 19, but you haven’t got 19, have you?
DR. MARX: Number 18 is my last one, Your Honor, and I ask to have that
included in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: And now you are going to go on with the witnesses?
DR. MARX: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you state your full name.
ERNST HIEMER: Ernst Hiemer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God—the
Almighty and Omniscient—that I will speak the pure truth—and will
withhold and add nothing.
[_The witness repeated the oath in German._]
You may sit down.
DR. MARX: Since when have you known Herr Streicher, how did you get into
contact with him, and what position did you have on _Der Stürmer_?
HIEMER: At the end of 1934 I was introduced to the then Gauleiter Julius
Streicher in the Deutscher Hof in Nuremberg. Streicher gave me the
assignment of working for his public health journal, _Die Deutsche
Volksgesundheit_. In 1935 I also wrote reports for _Der Stürmer_.
Streicher then had me transferred to the editorial staff of _Der
Stürmer_.
Eventually, under Streicher’s direction and the direction of other staff
members of _Der Stürmer_, I did editorial work as a co-editor. The
responsible editor of _Der Stürmer_ was Karl Holz, Streicher’s deputy,
but the leading spirit of the paper was Streicher himself. In the year
1938 instructions came from Berlin to the effect that Holz was permitted
to contribute to _Der Stürmer_, but in his capacity as state
official—he was the Deputy Gauleiter—he was no longer to be mentioned
in the editions of _Der Stürmer_. Thereupon, on instruction from
Streicher, my name was entered in _Der Stürmer_ as responsible editor.
The overall direction of the paper and all authority connected therewith
remained in Streicher’s hands, and Streicher retained this position
until the collapse.
DR. MARX: What was the main idea of _Der Stürmer’s_ policy? What was the
Leitmotiv?
HIEMER: Streicher wanted by means of _Der Stürmer_, in the simplest and
most popular language, to convey to every man and every woman of the
German nation knowledge about the Jews. Streicher wanted the entire
German people to realize that the Jew was a stranger among them.
DR. MARX: Herr Hiemer, I do not want to know that. I want you to tell me
whether Herr Streicher, let us say, wished to advocate emigration or
whether he followed a different train of thought. Long expositions on
the Jewish problem are not required.
HIEMER: Streicher was of the opinion that in Germany the Jewish question
should be solved by emigration. He repeatedly criticized the leadership
of the Reich because the emigration of Jews was not being carried
through in the manner desired by Streicher. When the war came, Streicher
asserted that the Jewish problem would no longer have had any
significance for a Germany at war if in accordance with his idea it had
been solved by complete emigration of the Jews during the preceding time
of peace.
DR. MARX: Is it correct that the Palestine and Madagascar problem was
discussed in the journal?
HIEMER: Yes. Streicher stated his opinion in word as well as in writing,
that Palestine and Madagascar would be suitable localities for absorbing
the Jews living in Germany. However, he did not follow up this thought,
since not Germany but only England and France could dispose of Palestine
and Madagascar.
DR. MARX: What do you think about the influence exerted by Streicher and
_Der Stürmer_ since 1933? Is it not true that since 1933 its influence
among the German people was much in decline?
HIEMER: Yes, that is correct. In many circles it was known that the
influence of Streicher and of his paper on the movement did decrease.
After 1933 Streicher had many conflicts with other Party leaders, and he
made many enemies. Particularly from the year 1937, Streicher was pushed
more and more into the background. Within the Party the Institute for
the Study of the Jewish Problem, under the leadership of Rosenberg,
dealt with the theory of the Jewish problem, and actual authority over
the Jews belonged, as is well known, exclusively to Himmler.
When finally in the year 1940 Streicher was relieved of his post as
Gauleiter, he was completely isolated. From then on he lived on his farm
and worked there as a farmer; he wrote articles only for _Der Stürmer_.
DR. MARX: What was the circulation of _Der Stürmer_ from 1933? Can you
give us figures? Of course, only after the date when you joined the
paper.
HIEMER: This question of the circulation could, of course, be answered
best by the publication manager, who was concerned with it. However, I
remember approximate figures. _Der Stürmer_ was in 1933 a very small
paper; but by the year 1935 its circulation increased to about 800,000.
After that, however, there was a sharp decline.
Of course, during the war _Der Stürmer_ had a smaller circulation. I
cannot give you any exact figures and during the last months the
circulation of the paper was, of course, extremely small. On the
average, I might say that _Der Stürmer_ had a circulation of perhaps
half a million. Of course, there were special issues which had a much
larger circulation.
As I said, only the publisher could authenticate these figures.
DR. MARX: What can be the reason for the increase in the year 1935?
HIEMER: It is very difficult for me to answer that question.
DR. MARX: Wasn’t it because Party authorities—because subscriptions
were made compulsory in factories and other places?
HIEMER: You are putting questions to me which really only a publisher
can answer. I myself cannot answer the question with assurance, and
therefore must remain silent; my testimony would not be reliable.
DR. MARX: Of course, if you don’t know, you are free to say, “My
knowledge on this point is not sufficient.” Did Herr Streicher know of
the happenings in the East, especially in the concentration camps, and
what did he personally tell you about these things?
HIEMER: Streicher himself never told me that he knew about the
happenings in the concentration camps. On the contrary, Streicher said
he learned of these things only in 1944 through the Swiss press.
Streicher received the Swiss newspapers regularly, in particular the
_Israelitisches Wochenblatt_ of Switzerland, and in 1944 this journal
published rather detailed descriptions about what was going on in the
concentration camps.
Streicher at first refused to credit these reports in the Swiss press
and called them premeditated lies. He declared that these reports were
being printed merely for the purpose of undermining the prestige of the
German people abroad. It is true Streicher soon changed his opinion. He
began to doubt that his opinion was right and finally he believed that
the occurrences in concentration camps, as pictured in the Swiss press,
did after all correspond to the facts. Streicher said that Himmler was
the only man who could have authorized such crimes.
DR. MARX: You said that Streicher soon changed his opinion. What does
that mean?
HIEMER: In the beginning he had decidedly said that these reports could
not be true. Then he became uncertain and said that perhaps they might
be true. I had the impression that either the detailed manner of the
reports in the Swiss press had convinced Streicher that these things had
actually occurred or that Streicher, from one source or another, either
through personal contact or through letters, had received knowledge that
these happenings were actually taking place in the concentration camps.
To that I ascribe his change of view.
DR. MARX: And when was that, approximately?
HIEMER: I cannot give you the exact date, but I believe it was in the
middle of 1944.
DR. MARX: What attitude did he take when he was finally convinced? Did
he express satisfaction at the fact that so many people had been killed?
HIEMER: No. Streicher definitely deprecated what was done in the
concentration camps. It did happen that Streicher, in anger—if he had
been especially upset by political events—often or at times, asserted
that Jews, as an enemy of the German people, should be exterminated.
However, Streicher talked in that way only in the first phase of
excitement. When he was calmed, he always opposed the extermination of
the Jews.
DR. MARX: But repeatedly in articles of _Der Stürmer_ there is talk of
the extermination of the Jews?
HIEMER: Yes. It is a fact that in reports of _Der Stürmer_ the
extermination of Jewry is spoken about. However, on the other hand,
Streicher again and again opposed the murder of the Jews, and I am quite
convinced that Streicher and _Der Stürmer_ had nothing whatever to do
with the happenings in concentration camps. I do not believe it.
For it is known now that these crimes in the concentration camps were
committed on the instructions of individual leading men; that is, on
official orders, and it is my firm conviction that neither Streicher nor
_Der Stürmer_ had anything to do with them.
DR. MARX: How were the articles which you wrote prepared? Did you
receive directives for the articles from Streicher and then merely edit
them, or were you the real author?
HIEMER: Streicher was the founder and the publisher of _Der Stürmer_.
But he was in fact also the chief editor, and all his colleagues, no
matter whether it was his deputy, Holz, or others—all of them had to
submit their articles to Streicher before they were printed. Streicher
then ordered changes if the need arose; he also gave the editors
assignments for articles, that is, he told them with what arguments
these articles were to be drawn up; and Streicher knew of all the
articles which appeared in _Der Stürmer_. In fact, he was the
responsible head, the editor of _Der Stürmer_. All others were his
assistants. He himself was, as he often said with pride, one and the
same with _Der Stürmer_. “Streicher and _Der Stürmer_ are one and the
same.” That was his maxim.
DR. MARX: That, of course, he admits; he says that he assumes the
responsibility.
What can you tell us about the so-called pornographic library?
HIEMER: _Der Stürmer_ was in possession of a large archive. This archive
consisted of many thousands of German and foreign-language books,
documents, edicts, and so forth. These books were either put at the
disposal of the _Stürmer_ archive by friends of _Der Stürmer_, or they
came from Jewish apartments. The police put books which were found in
Jewish houses at the disposal of Rosenberg’s Institute for the Study of
the Jewish problem for research purposes. Whatever remained in the
Jewish dwellings in Nuremberg was turned over to the _Stürmer_ archive.
Among these books there were also numerous which dealt with sexual
knowledge, books by Magnus Hirschfeld, Bloch, and some which were simply
pornographic. These, then, consisted both of books which had been sent
in by friends of the _Stürmer_, and books which had been found in Jewish
dwellings.
These books were kept in a special section of the _Stürmer_ archive
under lock and key, and the public did not have access to them. This
literature was no personal pornographic library of Streicher, but formed
a part of _Der Stürmer’s_ archive. Streicher never read these books.
They were to be reviewed after the war in the course of the
reconstruction. All those which were not of direct Jewish origin were to
be removed, but as I said, Streicher did not read these books.
DR. MARX: Where were these books kept? Were they in the publishing
house, or how is it that a part...
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, there is no charge here with respect to this
particular sort of books.
DR. MARX: This is my last question. I just wanted to clarify this
matter, since it played an important part in the public mind. I have no
further questions to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, are there any questions from the other Defense
Counsel?
DR. ALFRED THOMA (Counsel for Defendant Rosenberg): I have one question
only.
[_Turning to the witness._] Did Rosenberg have any connections with the
editorial staff of _Der Stürmer_?
HIEMER: To my knowledge, his connections were almost non-existent. I
knew personally only Dr. Ballensiefen, who worked with Rosenberg. I also
knew Dr. Pohl personally, but no relations existed between the _Der
Stürmer_ and the Institute for the Study of the Jewish Problem for the
purposes of co-operation.
DR. THOMA: Did Ballensiefen and Pohl have connections with _Der
Stürmer_?
HIEMER: Pohl had personal connections with me. He was a student of
Hebrew and had made translations of the Talmud; he had also published
the _Talmudgeist_. Through that I got to know him. Ballensiefen also had
no personal connection with _Der Stürmer_.
DR. THOMA: Does this mean that Pohl did have personal connections...
HIEMER: Only with me, not with _Der Stürmer_.
DR. THOMA: ...or was he sent by Rosenberg in this matter?
HIEMER: No.
DR. THOMA: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I have only one matter to ask you about. Do I
understand you to say that by the middle of 1944 Streicher had become
convinced that the reports in the Swiss newspaper, _Israelitisches
Wochenblatt_, were true?
HIEMER: I did not understand you. Will you please repeat the question?
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: Do I understand you to say that by the middle
of 1944 Streicher had become convinced of the truth of the reports he
was reading in the Swiss newspaper about concentration camps?
HIEMER: Yes, I had the impression that Streicher in the middle of
1944...
LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: I only wanted an answer “yes” or “no.” That is
quite sufficient.
Let me just read to you three lines of an article which was published in
_Der Stürmer_ on the 14th of September 1944.
HIEMER: Yes.